April 19, 2019
Attorney: Carrie Kojimoto
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.
September 20, 2019
Attorney: Elizabeth Grayson
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.
October 21, 2019
Attorney: Jennifer Sheetz
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.
June 3, 2019
Attorney: Alexis Collentine
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.
October 21, 2019
Attorney: Eric Larson
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.
August 28, 2019
Attorney: Bobbie Stein
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).
June 21, 2019
Attorney: Nicole Williams/Suzanne Davidson
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.
December 9, 2019
Attorney: Nathaniel Miller
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.
October 15, 2019
Attorney: Leila Moncharsh
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.
November 22, 2019
Attorney: Audrey Chavez
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.