PUBLISHED APPELLATE WINS

Most appellate opinions (whether the appellant wins or loses the case) are unpublished. Basically, unpublished opinions decide only the issues of the individual case. Published decisions, on the other hand, become part of the law. Parties can rely on and cite to published opinions when arguing legal issues in court.

juvenile dependency writs and appeals

In re J.N., 62 Cal.app.5th 767 (2021)

Dependency findings based solely on father's criminal history. Minor J.N. was adjudged a dependent of the Los Angeles County juvenile court (under Welf. & Inst. Code, § 300) based in part on his father’s violent criminal history that included convictions for criminal threats, assault with a deadly weapon, exhibiting a deadly weapon, and arson. The juvenile court removed J.N. from his father and denied the father family reunification services (under Welf. & Inst. Code, § 361.5, subd. (e)(1)). The father—who was serving an eight-year prison sentence when the court made these findings and orders—appealed to the Second District Court of Appeal. John P. McCurley was appointed to represent the father.

Court of Appeal reversal on insufficient evidence of risk to the child. The Court of Appeal reversed the juvenile court’s jurisdictional and dispositional orders. Agreeing with the father’s arguments, the Court of Appeal held that, while a parent’s past conduct may be probative of current conditions, in order to justify dependency jurisdiction, there must be a nexus between the past conduct and a current risk of harm to the child. In this case, the Court of Appeal found that the father’s criminal history, though it involved violence, was insufficient to show a substantial current risk to J.N. The Court explained: “This evidence supports a reasonable inference that there is a substantial risk Father will commit crimes—even violent crimes—in the future. But that is not the same as a substantial risk J.N. will be harmed.” (In re J.N., 62 Cal.App.5th 767, 775.)

In re Bianca S., 241 Cal.App.4th 1272 (2015)

Juvenile dependents wrongfully detained in juvenile hall. Two 13-year-old girls who were dependents of the San Diego County juvenile court (under Welf. & Inst. Code, § 300) were detained in juvenile hall pending further proceedings after juvenile wardship petitions (under Welf & Inst. Code, § 602) were filed alleging the girls had knocked over a vending machine and taken items from inside. The two minors—who were represented by John P. McCurley—filed writ petitions in the Fourth District Court of Appeal requesting an order for immediate release.

Court of Appeal orders immediate release. The Court of Appeal granted the girls’ habeas corpus petitions and ordered their immediate release. The court held there was no “urgent necessity” justifying detention under Welfare and Institutions Code sections 635 and 636, and that the evidence strongly suggested that the girls were wrongfully detained in juvenile hall based on their status as juvenile dependents and because their social workers weren't available to find suitable placements.

K.F. v. Superior Court, 224 Cal.App.4th 1369 (2014)

Parents accused of physical abuse denied the opportunity to reunify with their child. The three-month-old minor, S.F., was removed from her parents after the parents brought her to the hospital with various injuries that, according to doctors, were likely the result of abuse. The San Diego County juvenile court declared S.F. a dependent of the juvenile court after finding by a preponderance of the evidence that the parents committed, knew about, or reasonably should have known about the abuse (under Welf. & Inst. Code, § 300, subd. (a)), and by clear and convincing evidence that the parents failed or were unable to protect the child from serious physical harm (under Welf. & Inst. Code, § 300, subd. (b)). The juvenile court then denied both parents family reunification services under Welfare and Institutions Code section 361.5, subdivisions (b)(5) and (b)(6). The parents challenged the juvenile court’s orders in the Fourth District Court of Appeal. John P. McCurley represented the mother in the appellate court.

Court of Appeal reverses finding legal error. The Court of Appeal reversed, finding that the parents couldn’t be bypassed for reunification services because the abuse findings were made only by a preponderance of the evidence rather than the higher clear and convincing standard.

criminal appeals

People v. Hill, 236 Cal.App.4th 1100 (2015) (co-counsel)

Defendant convicted of first-degree murder. Defendant Rosa Hill and her mother, defendant Mei Li, were convicted of the attempted murder of Hill’s ex-husband, Eric, and the first-degree murder of Eric’s grandmother. The evidence suggested that Li arrived after Hill had already killed the grandmother. Hill appealed her conviction to the First District Court of Appeal. John P. McCurley was co-counsel for the appeal.

Court of Appeal reverses based on erroneous jury instructions. The Court of Appeal found the Alameda County trial court erred in not instructing the jury that Li could only be found guilty of first-degree felony murder under an aider and abettor theory if Li was jointly engaged in the target felony with Hill when the fatal wound was inflicted. Li’s first-degree murder conviction was reversed.

habeas corpus writ petitions

In re Juarez, 182 Cal.App.4th 1316 (2010) 

Life prisoner denied parole. In 1982, Ernesto Juarez was convicted of second-degree murder in San Mateo County after causing a fatal collision while driving under the influence of drugs. At 22 years old, Juarez was sentenced to 15-years-to-life in prison. While in prison, Juarez acknowledged his substance abuse issues, participated in various self-help programs, and acquired job skills. He had realistic parole plans and good family support. His prison disciplinary record and psychological evaluations were also favorable to his release. However, in July 2008, the Board of Parole Hearings denied Juarez parole. The Board’s decision was based on Juarez’s inability to remember the details of his commitment offense (due to being in a drug-induced blackout), the heinousness of his offense, and Juarez’s criminal history. Juarez filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the First District Court of Appeal. The Court appointed John P. McCurley to represent Juarez.

Court of Appeals finds evidence insufficient to deny parole. The Court of Appeal granted Juarez’s petition for writ of habeas corpus and reversed, finding that the factors relied on by the Board didn’t show that Juarez’s release on parole would pose an unreasonable risk of danger to society.