Error and/or relief
The minor was found to have committed assault with force likely to produce great bodily injury, carrying a concealed, loaded firearm, evading an officer, and resisting an officer. The juvenile court committed appellant to a Secure Youth Treatment Facility. The juvenile court lacked authority to do so. Remanded for a new disposition hearing.
First Holding:
the juvenile court lacked authority to commit him to a Secure Youth Treatment Facility (SYTF) because the most recent offense for which he was adjudicated was not a qualifying offense under Welfare and Institutions Code section 707(b).
Authority:
WIC 875(a)(1)-(2)
Second Holding:
Before the enactment of section 875, our Supreme Court interpreted similar language in section 733(c). Section 733(c) prohibits a ward’s commitment to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Division of Juvenile Facilities [known also as DJJ and DJF] if the ward’s most recent offense alleged in any petition and admitted or found to be true by the court is not described in section 707(b) or Penal Code section 290.008(c).
The court held this language is clear and lends itself to only one reasonable interpretation. The phrase “most recent” describes when the minor committed the offense, not when the petition is adjudicated.
Authority:
In re D.B. (2014) 58 Cal.4th 941, 947
In re B.J. (2020) 49 Cal.App.5th 646, 648
Third Holding:
The Legislature used language in section 875 substantially similar to language the Supreme Court had already interpreted in section 733(c). We presume, therefore, that the Legislature intended the same construction. Now, instead of DJJ, eligible youth can be committed to a SYTF if their most recent offense is described in section 707(b).
The court did not have authority to impose a SYTF commitment because appellant’s most recently committed offenses occurred four months after the only offense that comes with section 707(b), and are not qualifying offenses. Remand is necessary to allow the court to conduct a new disposition hearing.
Authority:
WIC 875
Moran v. Murtaugh Miller Meyer & Nelson, LLP (2007) 40 Cal.4th 780, 785