First District Victories

Finding no substantial evidence to support the distant placement of a minor to a Ranch about 190 miles away from his home, the Court of Appeal reversed and remanded with instructions to reconsider the placement decision.

Although the Court of Appeal found no abuse of discretion in the juvenile court’s decision to impose an electronic search condition, it found the condition imposed swept too broadly, and so remand for the juvenile court to consider imposing a narrower search condition.

The Court of Appeal concluded the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in imposing an electronic search condition, but the condition must be narrowed on remand.

The Court of Appeal determined that the juvenile court abused its discretion when it ordered mother and foster mother to share educational rights over the child. The Court found that the juvenile court used an incorrect legal standard as it did not consider whether limiting the educational rights of mother was necessary to protect the child.

A jury found the defendant guilty of sexual intercourse or sodomy with a child 10 years of age or younger (Pen. Code, § 288.7, subd. (a)), among other offenses. However, the Court of Appeal found that insufficient evidence proved that the charged offense occurred on or after the statute’s effective date and therefore reversed the conviction.

The Court of Appeal remanded to the trial court with directions to consider whether to exercise its discretion to strike appellant’s five-year prior serious felony enhancement under Penal Code section 667, subdivision (a)(1).

Minors and the mother argued the juvenile court erred when it terminated dependency jurisdiction without allowing a contested hearing. The Court of Appeal agreed. The termination order was reversed and remanded for the juvenile court to hold a contested hearing and to allow appellants to present evidence on the issue.

In reviewing the denial of appellant’s motion to suppress, the Court of Appeal found that while the circumstances of the case may have supported a detention, they did not, either singularly or collectively, give rise to a reasonable suspicion that appellant was armed or dangerous. Here, appellant matched the description of a cell phone theft suspect, “appeared nervous” when speaking to the officer, “deceptively answered” the officer’s question, was wearing baggy clothing, and had a “relatively heavy” backpack. The Court of Appeal remanded the case and instructed the juvenile court to vacate its order denying the suppression motion, enter a new order granting the motion, and allow the minor to withdraw his plea.

The Court of Appeal struck the electronic search condition, but remanded the case to the trial court to consider whether a narrower condition would comport with In re Ricardo P. (2019) 7 Cal.5th 1113.

The Court of Appeal held that appellant’s one-year prison term enhancement under Penal Code section 667.5, subd. (b) must be stricken in light of Senate Bill No. 136. Effective January 1, 2020, amended section 667.5, subd.(b) imposes that additional one-year term only for a prior prison term served for a sexually violent offense, which was not the case for appellant.