- Family: Riverside Superior Judge Dorothy Mclaughlin’s judgment reversed in part in Marriage of Duncan (RID1604626/E075329)
- Grace Duarte challenged McLaughlin’s distribution of property in this marriage dissolution case. The Court of Appeal agreed that the court incorrectly shifted a burden to her, and reversed orders that charged her for $100,000 in withdrawals from joint bank accounts.
- Civil: Riverside Superior Judge David Chapman’s judgment affirmed in Reed v. Sylk (PSC1801926/E077267)
- Diane Reed appealed Chapman’s judgment in favor of defendant Robert Sylk. Reed argued Sylk committed fraud and financial elder abuse. Sylk had been paid $15,000 to introduce Reed to prospective lenders for her business. The connections did not result in loans. The Court of Appeal agreed with Chapman that the case should be dismissed.
- Criminal: Riverside Superior Judge Mark Mandio’s sentence affirmed in People v. Tromp (SWF1401307/E079993)
- Lawrence Tromp was convicted of assault with a deadly weapon in 2018 after stabbing a man in the chest while waiting for a bus in Hemet in 2014. After an appeal, Tromp was resentenced to nine years in prison on Aug. 29, 2022. Because he was in prison awaiting sentence, he was released. Tromp appealed, but failed to file a brief. The Court of Appeal found no arguable issues.
- Family: Riverside Superior Judge Dorothy Mclaughlin’s termination of parental rights reversed and remanded with directions in In re C.G. (SWJ001249/E079737)
- A mother and father appeal the termination of parental rights, arguing that the court failed to find that the beneficial parent-child relationship exception applies. They also argued the Riverside County failed to investigate their child’s Native American heritage as required by federal law. The Court of Appeal disagreed with the first argument, but agreed with the second, and ordered the termination of parental rights be temporarily reversed while the county properly investigates.
- Family: Riverside Superior Judge Cheryl Murphy’s dependency jurisdiction modified in In re A.A. (RIJ2200182/E079241)
- A mother and father appeal from an order that established jurisdiction over the mother’s three daughters. The mother had mental illness, and was suicidal, resulting in her child’s self-harm. The father was found to fail to protect his daughter from the mental illness. The Court of Appeal struck some of the true findings.
- Criminal: San Bernardino Superior Judge Antoine Raphael’s admittance of un-Mirandized statements affirmed in People v. May (FVI19002218/E078021)
- Jolene May was found guilty of possession of methamphetamine for sale. She appealed, arguing that the trial court should not have admitted statements she made to officers in violation of her Miranda rights. She said that a San Bernardino sheriff’s deputy told her that the case would not go to trial if she admitted to selling drugs and gave him her contacts. She said that the detective started his interrogation without reading her Miranda rights. The Court of Appeal disagreed, and found that she admitted to selling methamphetamine after she was read her rights.
- Family: San Bernardino Superior Judge Steven Mapes’s denial of visitation rights affirmed in In re J.S. (J291601-J291605/E079772)
- A mother appealed an order denying her visitation rights, arguing that San Bernardino County failed to investigate her child’s Native American heritage as required by federal law. Since she filed her appeal, visitation rights were granted, causing the issue to be moot.
- Criminal: San Bernardino Superior Judge Joseph Ortiz’s trial affirmed in People v. Edwards (FMB21000019/E078554)
- Jamaceeo Edwards was convicted of two sex offenses with multiple enhancements. According to the appellate ruling, Edwards had grabbed a women off the street and raped her. Edwards appealed, arguing there was insufficient evidence to support an enhancement for aggravated kidnapping. He claimed there was not enough evidence to prove he moved the woman from one place to another, considering she blacked out before waking up in another location. The Court of Appeal found that there was enough evidence, and affirmed the judgment.