Category Archives: Juveniles

Juveniles, Sentencing

Case 000816

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Given that the minor was not removed from his home, it was error for the court to set the maximum term of confinement.

Holding:

When a minor is removed from the physical custody of a parent or guardian, a juvenile court must specify the maximum term of confinement. But the statute authorizes the juvenile court to specify the maximum confinement term only when a minor is removed from parental custody. Because the juvenile court did not remove the minor from his mother’s custody, the maximum confinement term should be stricken.

Authority:

WIC 726(d)(1)

In re Matthew A. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 537, 541

 

Juveniles, Sentencing

Case 000788

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

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

Jurisdiction, Juveniles

Case 000774

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The juvenile court erred by holding the minor jointly and severally liable for victim restitution.

First Holding:

Restitution orders are subject to review on appeal for an abuse of discretion. The ‘court abuses its discretion when it acts contrary to law.

Authority:

In re Travis J. (2013) 222 Cal.App.4th 187, 202

Second Holding:

Welfare and Institutions Code section 730.6 governs restitution in cases where a minor is adjudicated a ward of the court pursuant to section 602. Under this statute, a victim of conduct for which a minor is found to be a person described in section 602 who incurs an economic loss as a result of the minor’s conduct shall receive restitution directly from that minor.

For the purposes of victim restitution, each minor shall be held severally liable, and shall not be held jointly and severally liable as co-offenders. The court shall apportion liability based on each minor’s percentage of responsibility or fault for all economic losses included in the order of restitution. The aggregate amount of apportioned liability for all minors involved shall not exceed 100 percent in total.

Authority:

WIC 730.6

WIC 602

In re M.W. (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 1, 4

Third Holding:

The error has not been waived, as the failure to object to a restitution order that exceeds the court’s statutory authority does not waive the claim of error.

Authority:

In re Paul R. (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 1582, 1590

Elements of crime, Juveniles, Standard of review, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence, Vicarious liability

Case 000773

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

We reverse the juvenile court’s finding that the minor committed murder as an aider and abettor with implied malice.

First Holding:

An aider and abettor of murder must actually aid and abet the lethal act in order to be convicted of murder.

Authority:

People v. Morris (2026) 19 Cal.5th 671, 678

Second Holding:

The trial court announced its finding that, to be liable for an implied malice murder, a direct aider and abettor must, by words or conduct, aid the commission of the life endangering act, not the result of that act. The court treated the robbery as the life-endangering act that resulted in the victim’s death.

The court went on to state that the People have proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the minor was an aider and abettor to the robbery with knowledge that his compatriots intended to commit the robbery; did, in fact, intend to aid the perpetrators in the commission of the robbery or attempted robbery, and had knowledge that the act was dangerous to human life.

The opinion in Morris was issued long after the juvenile court sustained the petition, and under Morris, the court’s reasoning was in error.

Authority:

People v. Morris (2026) 19 Cal.5th 671

Third Holding:

When considering a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction, we review the entire record in the light most favorable to the judgment to determine whether it contains substantial evidence—that is, evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid value—from which a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

We determine whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. In so doing, a reviewing court presumes in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the trier could reasonably deduce from the evidence.

The same standard of review governs our review of the sufficiency of evidence in juvenile delinquency cases.

Authority:

People v. Edwards (2013) 57 Cal.4th 658, 715

In re Roderick P. (1972) 7 Cal.3d 801, 809

In re A.G. (2020) 58 Cal.App.5th 647, 653

In re Matthew A. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 537, 540

Fourth Holding:

Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought. An unlawful killing during the commission of a felony is also murder. Second degree implied malice murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought but without the additional elements, such as willfulness, premeditation, and deliberation, that would support a conviction of first degree murder. Malice may be express or implied.

Authority:

PEN 187(a)

PEN 189(a),(e)

People v. Knoller (2007) 41 Cal.4th 139, 151

Fifth Holding:

Malice is implied when the killing is proximately caused by an act, the natural consequences of which are dangerous to life, which act was deliberately performed by a person who knows that his conduct endangers the life of another and who acts with conscious disregard for life. In short, implied malice requires a defendant’s awareness of engaging in conduct that endangers the life of another—no more, and no less. This definition is referred to as “simple implied malice murder.”

Authority:

People v. Knoller (2007) 41 Cal.4th 139, 143

People v. Reyes (2023) 14 Cal.5th 981, 988

Sixth Holding:

To suffice for implied malice murder, the defendant’s act must not merely be dangerous to life in some vague or speculative sense; it must involve a high degree of probability that it will result in death. Implied malice requires a defendant’s awareness of the risk of death to another.

Authority:

People v. Knoller (2007) 41 Cal.4th 139, 152

People v. Reyes (2023) 14 Cal.5th 981, 989

Seventh Holding:

To be considered the proximate cause of the victim’s death, the defendant’s act must have been a substantial factor contributing to the result, rather than insignificant or merely theoretical. The question of implied malice is to be decided in light of all the circumstances.

Authority:

People v. Reyes (2023) 14 Cal.5th 981, 988

People v. Moore (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 937, 942

Eighth Holding:

Under Penal Code section 187, the mens rea required for murder is malice aforethought. Regarding aiders and abettors, in order to be convicted of murder, a principal in a crime shall act with malice aforethought. Malice shall not be imputed to a person based solely on his or her participation in a crime.

In the context of implied malice murder, the aider and abettor must know the perpetrator intends to commit a life-endangering act, intend to aid the perpetrator in the commission of that act, know the act is dangerous to human life, and act in conscious disregard for human life.

Authority:

PEN 187

PEN 188(a)(3)

People v. McCoy (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1111, 1118

People v. Harris (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 623, 631

People v. Curiel (2023) 15 Cal.5th 433, 468

People v. Reyes (2023) 14 Cal.5th 981, 991

Ninth Holding:

Murder also requires an actus reus. In the context of implied malice, the actus reus required of the perpetrator is the commission of a life-endangering act. For the direct aider and abettor, the actus reus includes whatever acts constitute aiding the commission of the life-endangering act.

Thus, to be liable for an implied malice murder, the direct aider and abettor must, by words or conduct, aid the commission of the life-endangering act, not the result of that act.

Authority:

People v. Concha (2009) 47 Cal.4th 653, 660

People v. Reyes (2023) 14 Cal.5th 981, 991

Tenth Holding:

As relevant to this aider or abettor theory of liability in a felony-murder, the amended felony-murder rule now states that when a person was not the actual killer, that person must have, with the intent to kill, aided, abetted, counseled, commanded, induced, solicited, requested, or assisted the actual killer in the commission of murder in the first degree. Section 189(e)(2) requires a nonkiller to aid the actual killer in the lethal act.

While the language of Penal Code section 188(a)(3), differs from section 189(e), pursuant to section 188(a)(3), a direct aider and abettor must act with malice aforethought, and act with intent to aid the life-endangering act of the direct perpetrator that proximately causes the death.

Authority:

PEN 189(e)(2)

People v. Morris (2026) 19 Cal.5th 671, 678

People v. Pittman (2023) 96 Cal.App.5th 400, 415

People v. Reyes (2023) 14 Cal.5th 981, 991-992

Eleventh Holding:

Implied malice murder requires attention to the aider and abettor’s mental state concerning the life endangering act committed by the direct perpetrator, such as shooting at the victim, or, as in this case, stabbing him. In other words, the aider and abettor must know the perpetrator intends to commit a life-endangering act, intend to aid the perpetrator in the commission of that act, know the act is dangerous to human life, and act in conscious disregard for human life. Even if the act results in a death that is accidental, the circumstances surrounding the act may evince implied malice.

Authority:

People v. Reyes (2023) 14 Cal.5th 981, 992

People v. Curiel (2023) 15 Cal.5th 433, 468

People v. Nieto Benitez (1992) 4 Cal.4th 91, 110

Twelfth Holding:

SB 1437 abolished the natural and probable consequences doctrine in cases of murder, amending section 188 to require that, when the felony-murder rule does not apply, a principal in the crime of murder shall act with malice aforethought, and that malice shall not be imputed to a person based solely on his or her participation in a crime. As a result, the natural and probable consequences doctrine can no longer support a murder conviction.

Authority:

PEN 188

In re R.G. (2019) 35 Cal.App.5th 141, 144

People v. Gentile (2020) 10 Cal.5th 830, 847-848

Thirteenth Holding:

Instead, with the exception of section 189(e), a conviction for murder requires that a person act with malice aforethought and that a person’s culpability for murder must be premised upon that person’s own actions and subjective mens rea.

We conclude the legislative language of Penal Code section 188(a)(3) requires a finding that the accused actually aided the perpetrator in the commission of the life-endangering act, and that the accused’s participation in a dangerous felony as an aider and abettor cannot form the basis for finding implied malice.

Only in this way will a finding that the accused aided and abetted in the commission of implied malice murder reflect a determination of the person’s guilt based on his own actions and subjective intent.

Authority:

People v. Lopez (2026) 19 Cal.5th 639, 660-661

Elements of crime, Juveniles, Standard of review, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence, Vicarious liability

Case 000768

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

There was insufficient evidence to support the allegation that the minor received stolen property in violation of section 496d(a) (pertaining to the vehicle in which he was a passenger).

First Holding:

The same standard governs review of the sufficiency of the evidence in adult criminal cases and juvenile cases. We examine the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment to determine whether it discloses substantial evidence—evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid value—such that a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

While substantial evidence includes circumstantial evidence and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, such inferences may not be based on suspicion alone, or on imagination, or speculation.

Authority:

In re Amanda A. (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 537, 545-546

In re Matthew A. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 537, 540

People v. Grant (2020) 57 Cal.App.5th 323, 330

Second Holding:

To sustain the petition on the receiving a stolen vehicle count, the People had to prove: (1) the motor vehicle was stolen; (2) the minor knew it was stolen; and (3) the minor received, concealed, or withheld the stolen vehicle from its owner.

Authority:

People v. Land (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 220, 223-224

In re Anthony J. (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 718, 728

Third Holding:

Receipt, or possession of stolen property, may be actual or constructive and need not be exclusive. Physical possession is also not a requirement. It is sufficient if the defendant acquires a measure of control or dominion over the stolen property.

Constructive possession occurs when the defendant maintains control or a right to control the property; possession may be imputed when the property is found in a place that is immediately and exclusively accessible to the defendant and subject to his or her dominion and control, or to the joint dominion and control of the defendant and another.

Authority:

People v. Land (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 220, 223-224 [construing similar language in context of sec. 496, general receiving stolen property statute]

People v. Rushing (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 618, 621-622

Fourth Holding:

Possession may be established through circumstantial evidence and resulting reasonable inferences. However, mere presence near the stolen property, or access to the location where the stolen property is found is not sufficient evidence of possession, standing alone, to sustain a conviction for receiving stolen property. Something more must be shown to support inferring of dominion and control. The necessary additional circumstances may, in some fact contexts, be rather slight.

Authority:

People v. Land (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 220, 224

People v. Myles (1975) 50 Cal.App.3d 423, 429 [evidence the defendant was passenger in car and found standing close to car trunk containing stolen goods insufficient to infer possession for conviction of receiving stolen property]

People v. Zyduck (1969) 270 Cal.App.2d 334, 336 [evidence defendant was passenger in car with stolen chain saw in rear seat insufficient evidence to infer his possession of stolen item]

Fifth Holding:

The car was stolen and the minor knew the car was stolen, but there is no substantial evidence that the minor possessed or aided in withholding the car from its owner.

While it is true that conscious possession of recently stolen property itself raises a strong inference that the possessor knew the property was stolen, the issue here is whether, as a mere passenger, he actually or constructively possessed the stolen car as a section 496d conviction requires.

Aiding and abetting the commission of a crime requires some affirmative action. Mere presence at the scene of a crime which does not itself assist its commission or mere knowledge that a crime is being committed and the failure to prevent it does not amount to aiding and abetting.

There was no evidence to show the minor directed the driver to speed away from the pursuing officers or otherwise directed any movement of the Infiniti as a passenger. There was no evidence that the minor had an opportunity to get out of the car before the traffic stop, or once the driver sped away from the officers.

The record is also devoid of any evidence regarding the minor’s relationship to any of the other occupants of the car, and the gang expert conceded the minor had no documented gang-related contacts apart from this one incident.

Absent evidence showing the nature and extent of the relationship between the minor and the other occupants, or the circumstances of the minor’s affirmative actions beyond simply running from the Infiniti, we conclude the evidence established nothing more than that the minor was a passenger in the stolen car, but not that he aided and abetted in the vehicle theft or in withholding the stolen vehicle from its rightful owner.

Authority:

People v. O’Dell (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 1569, 1574

People v. Anderson (1989) 210 Cal.App.3d 414, 420-421

People v. Partee (2020) 8 Cal.5th 860, 868

People v. Pettie (2017) 16 Cal.App.5th 23, 57

People v. Sedillo (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 1037, 1039 [presence at crime scene, by itself, is insufficient to establish aiding and abetting; relevant factors for determining aider and abettor liability may include presence, companionship, and conduct before and after offense]

Fines and fees, Juveniles, Retroactivity, Sentencing

Case 000755

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Because of a change in the law while the minor’s case has been pending, the restitution fine ordered by the court must be stricken.

First Holding:

Here, the juvenile court imposed a restitution fine as a condition of probation. At the time of the minor’s disposition, the restitution fine was mandatory. Effective January 1, 2025, however, the Legislature passed AB 1186 which amended Welfare and Instituitons Code section 730.6 to prohibit a court from imposing a separate and additional restitution fine against a minor found to be a person described in Section 602.

Authority:

WIC 730.6(a)(2)

Second Holding:

An adult or juvenile offender is generally entitled to benefit from amendments that become effective while their case is on appeal and not yet final.

Authority:

People v. Vieira (2005) 35 Cal.4th 264, 305 [applying a revised version of the statute in setting a restitution fine]

In re N.D. (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 885, 891 [rule of retroactivity applies to juvenile delinquency judgments]

In re Estrada (1965) 63 Cal.2d 740, 748 [Where the amendatory statute mitigates punishment and there is no saving clause, the rule is that the amendment will operate retroactively so that the lighter punishment is imposed.

Third Holding:

Because imposing a restitution fine constitutes “punishment” and the minor’s case was not yet final when section 730.6 became effective, we conclude section 730.6 operates retroactively and precludes imposition of a restitution fine. Therefore, the restitution fine should be stricken.

Authority:

People v. Allen (2019) 41 Cal.App.5th 312, 321

Juveniles, Probation Parole PRCS, Sentencing

Case 000734

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court imposed as a condition of probation: “Do not associate or communicate with your co-participant and anyone you know who is on probation, parole, or a gang member” The defendant objects to the inclusion of the phrase “or a gang member.” The condition must be modified.

First Holding:

The juvenile court has wide discretion to select appropriate conditions and may impose any reasonable condition that is fitting and proper to the end that justice may be done and the reformation and rehabilitation of the ward enhanced. Although courts have broad discretion to set conditions of probation, the trial court’s discretion in setting the conditions of probation is not unbounded.

Authority:

In re Sheena K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 875, 889

People v. Lopez (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 615, 624

Second Holding:

A term of probation is invalid if it: (1) has no relationship to the crime of which the offender was convicted, (2) relates to conduct which is not in itself criminal, and (3) requires or forbids conduct which is not reasonably related to future criminality Conversely, a condition of probation that requires or forbids conduct that is not itself criminal is valid if that conduct is reasonably related to the crime of which the minor was convicted or to future criminality.

Authority:

People v. Lent (1975) 15 Cal.3d 481, 48

Third Holding:

When a gang condition imposed by the juvenile court involves non-criminal conduct and prohibits a minor from engaging in otherwise legal conduct, we can uphold it only if there is a reasonable connection between the condition and the offense or between the condition and future criminality. Gang-related probation conditions are reasonably related to preventing future criminality when there is evidence of the minor’s affiliation with criminal street gangs.

In the absence of evidence of gang affiliation or association with gang members or risk of gang involvement on the minor’s part, the gang condition is not tailored to his future criminality. In this case, any connection between the minor’s offense and gang activity is speculative.

Accordingly, the condition is modified to “Do not associate or communicate with your co-participant and anyone you know who is on probation or parole.”

Authority:

In re Edward B. (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 1228, 1236

People v. Brandão (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 568, 574

Juveniles, Probation Parole PRCS

Case 000717

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court imposed a condition requiring the minor to participate in counseling and/or an education program as directed by his probation officer. This condition is too indefinite and we reverse and remand for the court to modify or strike it.

First Holding:

Although the minor did not object to this condition, we may still consider his challenge because it presents a pure question of law.

Authority:

In re Sheena K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 875, 887

Second Holding:

A juvenile court has broad discretion to fashion conditions of probation. And the court may empower the probation department with authority to supervise probation conditions. But, while a court may leave to the discretion of the probation officer the specification of the many details that invariably are necessary to implement the terms of probation, the court’s order cannot be entirely open-ended.

By leaving key determinations to be decided ad hoc, a vague probation condition may also result in an impermissible delegation of authority to the probation officer. Under the separation of powers doctrine, judicial powers may not be delegated to nonjudicial officers.

Authority:

Cal. Const., art. III, sec. 3

In re P.O. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 288, 293

People v. Kwizera (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 1238, 1240

People v. O’Neil (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1351, 1358–1359

People v. Smith (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 897, 902

Third Holding:

The court did not specify any particular kind of counseling or education program. Indeed, by putting “and/or” between education and counseling, the court did not make clear whether the minor must participate in education, counseling, or both. Because the condition in this case contains no standard by which the probation department is to be guided, the condition is too broad and must either be stricken or rewritten to provide the necessary specificity.

Authority:

People v. O’Neil (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1351, 1359

Fourth Holding:

We acknowledge the line between an appropriate delegation of details and an improper delegation of judicial authority may not always be clear. But the trial court must at least select a specific category of educational or therapeutic programming.

Authority:

People v. Smith (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 897, 902–903 [striking condition requiring defendant to participate in any treatment/therapy/counseling program, including residential, as directed by the probation officer because the court must choose between residential and outpatient programming]

Cf. People v. Penoli (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 298, 301, 302, 308 [approving condition requiring defendant to enter a residential drug treatment program as approved by the Probation Officer because any attempt to specify a particular program at or prior to sentencing would pose serious practical difficulties]

Appellate Principles, Juveniles, Plea bargains, Sentencing

Case 000684

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The juvenile court erred when it set minor’s maximum confinement term at 33 years plus 25 years to life. We modify the maximum term of confinement to 25 years eight months plus 25 years to life.

First Holding:

Effective January 1, 2019, the Legislature passed SB 1391. The amendment eliminated the transfer of juveniles accused of committing crimes when they are 14 or 15 years old, unless they are first apprehended after the end of juvenile court jurisdiction. One year later, in 2020, the Legislature passed juvenile justice realignment through SB 823. It overhauled juvenile wardship law by closing the Division of Juvenile Justice and transferring jurisdiction over youthful offenders to counties, with the stated purpose of ensuring minors are closer to their families and communities and receive age appropriate treatment.

Authority:

WIC 707(a)

WIC 736.5

O.G. v. Superior Court of Ventura County (2011) 11 Cal.5th 82, 89

In re M.B. (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 435, 448

In re T.O. (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 252, 262–263

In re Miguel C. (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 899, 907

Second Holding:

Section 875, effective May 14, 2021, was added as part of the juvenile justice realignment. Under the new scheme, commencing July 1, 2021, the court may order that a minor who is 14 years of age or older be committed to Secure Youth Treatment Facility if the minor meets certain criteria.

Authority:

WIC 875(a)

In re J.P. (2023) 94 Cal.App.5th 74, 78

Third Holding:

Section 875(b)(1) states the baseline term must be based on the most serious recent offense for which the minor has been adjudicated and shall represent the time in custody necessary to meet the developmental and treatment needs of the minor and to prepare the minor for discharge to a period of probation supervision in the community. The baseline term must be consistent with specified guidelines and may deviate by no more than six months.

Authority:

WIC 875(b)(1)

Fourth Holding:

In deciding minor’s placement, the juvenile court has maximum flexibility to craft suitable orders aimed at rehabilitating the particular minor before it.

Dispositional orders must conform with the purposes of juvenile delinquency laws, which are “twofold: (1) to serve the best interests of the delinquent minor by providing care, treatment, and guidance to rehabilitate the minor and enable him or her to be a law abiding and productive member of his or her family and the community, and (2) to provide for the protection and safety of the public.

It must consider the broadest range of information in determining how best to rehabilitate a minor and afford him adequate care. A disposition hearing record should reflect evidence that the proposed means of rehabilitation will result in probable benefit to the minor, and that the goals of the juvenile law could not have been met by a less restrictive placement.

Authority:

In re James R. (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 413, 432

In re Carlos J. (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 1, 7

In re Michael D. (1987) 188 Cal.App.3d 1392

In re Miguel C. (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 899, 906

In re Charles G. (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 608, 614

In re Robert H. (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 1317, 1329

Fifth Holding:

Plea bargains are an accepted and integral component of the criminal justice system and essential to the expeditious and fair administration of our courts. Plea bargaining is a common feature in juvenile delinquency proceedings, just as it is in criminal proceedings in adult court. Similar principles apply in both settings.

A plea bargain is a contract between the accused and the prosecutor. Both of these parties are bound to the terms of the agreement; when the court approves the plea bargain, it also agrees to be bound by its terms. Both the accused and the prosecution are entitled to the benefit of the plea bargain. When either the prosecution or the defendant is deprived of benefits for which it has bargained, corresponding relief will lie from concessions made.

Authority:

People v. Collins (1978) 21 Cal.3d 208, 214

People v. Segura (2008) 44 Cal.4th 921, 929

In re Kenneth H. (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 143 [It is well settled that a plea bargain is a tripartite agreement which requires the consent of the defendant, the People and the court]

In re Jermaine B. (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 634, 639 [Plea bargaining is an accepted practice in our criminal justice system]

People v. Vargas (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 506, 533

People v. Armendariz (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 906, 911

People v. Panizzon (1996) 13 Cal.4th 68, 80 [When a guilty plea is entered in exchange for specified benefits such as the dismissal of other counts or an agreed maximum punishment, both parties must abide by the terms of the agreement]

Sixth Holding:

Although a plea agreement does not divest the court of its inherent sentencing discretion, a judge who has accepted a plea bargain is bound to impose a sentence within the limits of that bargain. A plea agreement is, in essence, a contract between the defendant and the prosecutor to which the court consents to be bound. Should the court consider the plea bargain to be unacceptable, its remedy is to reject it, not to violate it, directly or indirectly.

Authority:

People v. Segura (2008) 44 Cal.4th 921, 931

People v. Ames (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1214, 1217

Seventh Holding:

The court, upon sentencing, has broad discretion to withdraw its prior approval of a negotiated plea. Such withdrawal is permitted, for example, in those instances where the court becomes more fully informed about the case, or where, after further consideration, the court concludes that the bargain is not in the best interests of society. In deciding whether or not to withdraw approval of a plea bargain, the court may of course be expected to consult the probation report.

Authority:

eople v. Johnson (1974) 10 Cal.3d 868, 873

People v. Superior Court (Gifford) (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1333, 1338

People v. Stringham (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 184, 194

Eighth Holding:

A minor who does not challenge an assertedly erroneous ruling of the juvenile court in that court has forfeited his or her right to raise the claim on appeal. The purpose of the forfeiture rule is to encourage parties to bring errors to the attention of the court—so any error may be corrected. While forfeiture is the failure to make the timely assertion of a right, waiver is the intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right.

Authority:

In re Sheena K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 875, 880; In re F.M. (2023) 14 Cal.5th 701, 710

In re S.B. (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1287, 1293, superseded by statute on another ground

In re M.R. (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 269, 273–274

United States v. Olano (1993) 507 U.S. 725, 733–734

In re Uriah R. (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 1152, 1155 [A broad or general waiver such as ‘I waive my appeal rights,’ will include error occurring prior to the waiver, but not subsequent error because the defendant could not make ‘a knowing and intelligent waiver of the right to appeal any unforeseen or unknown future error]

Ninth Holding:

The juvenile court incorrectly calculated the determinative portion of the term for count 2, the primary offense, as 19 years. Attempted murder, the offense in count 2, has a sentencing triad of five, seven, or nine years, for which the juvenile court imposed the upper term of nine years plus a 10 year term for the attendant gang enhancement pursuant to Penal Code section 186.22(b)(1)(C).

However, section 875(c)(1)(B) specifically states the term chosen by the juvenile court cannot exceed the middle term for which an adult would be eligible, with some exceptions. Therefore, the court erred in imposing the upper term for count 2.

Authority:

WIC 875(c)(1)(B)

Tenth Holding:

The juvenile court also miscalculated the consecutive term for count 1. Count 1 was the subordinate term, and the court was limited to one-third of the middle term plus one-third of the enhancements.

Authority:

PEN 1170.1

Amelioration, Juveniles, Retroactivity, Sentencing

Case 000632

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court did not determine whether the defendant’s prior juvenile adjudication in 2013 qualifies as a strike under the current version of section 186.22(b). Further, the prior juvenile adjudication cannot serve as the basis for a prior serious felony enhancement. We remand the matter to permit retrial of the gang enhancement under the current section 186.22 and for a full resentencing following retrial or the People’s election not to pursue retrial.

First Holding:

In 2021, the Legislature amended section 186.22 with the passage of AB 333. Among other things, AB 333 changed the elements of gang offenses and enhancements by narrowing the definitions of criminal street gang, pattern of criminal activity, and what it means for an offense to have commonly benefitted a street gang.

Authority:

People v. Tran (2022) 13 Cal.5th 1169, 1206,

People v. Fletcher (2025) 18 Cal.5th 576, 583

Second Holding:

Even if a defendant has suffered a conviction under the prior version of section 186.22, courts must look to current law, as amended in AB 333, to determine whether the conviction qualifies as a prior serious felony conviction under section 1192.7(c)(28) for purposes of the Three Strikes law and prior serious felony enhancements. The defendant’s prior conviction in this case could qualify as a strike offense only with the gang enhancement found true prior to AB 333. We must vacate the true finding on the strike prior and remand to permit the People to retry the gang enhancement under current law to determine whether the defendant’s prior conviction qualifies as a strike prior.

Authority:

People v. Fletcher (2025) 18 Cal.5th 576, 583, 587, 603-604, 607

Third Holding:

The defendant’s juvenile adjudications cannot be considered a prior serious felony conviction for purposes of the mandatory five-year enhancement in section 667(a).

Authority:

People v. Smith (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1072, 1080, fn. 10

People v. West (1984) 154 Cal.App.3d 100, 110

Fourth Holding:

When part of a sentence is stricken on review, on remand for resentencing ‘a full resentencing as to all counts is appropriate, so the trial court can exercise its sentencing discretion in light of the changed circumstances.

Authority:

People v. Buycks (2018) 5 Cal.5th 857, 893

Juveniles, Sentencing

Case 000621

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The credit for time served was miscalculated and is corrected.

Holding:

The juvenile court must subtract days that a juvenile spends in custody before disposition from their maximum period of physical confinement. The court subtracts the full period of precommitment custody starting with the day of arrest and including the day of the dispositional hearing. When, as in this case, there is no dispute about a calculation error, we need not remand the matter for recalculation. Instead, we may modify the dispositional order.

Authority:

WIC 875

PEN 2900.5

In re Antwon R. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 348, 352, 353 [minors are entitled to same reduction that adults receive under Penal Code section 2900.5]

People v. Bravo (1990) 219 Cal.App.3d 729, 735 [custody credit includes days of arrest and sentencing]

Discretion, Juveniles, Standard of review, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Case 000613

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

In decided the transfer the juvenile’s case to adult court, the court erred in evaluating whether the minor can be rehabilitated prior to expiration of the juvenile court’s jurisdiction and based its decision at least in part on unreliable data presented by a prosecution witness. We remand for the juvenile court to reconsider the second criterion under section 707(a)(3)(B), consistent with this opinion, whetherthe minor can be rehabilitated prior to the expiration of the court’s jurisdiction.

In addition, the court is to make a finding whether, in light of all five statutory criteria, the People have met their burden of demonstrating by clear and convincing evidence that the minor. is not amenable to rehabilitation.

First Holding:

Under Welfare and Institutions Code section 707(a)(1), when a minor 16 years or older is alleged to have committed a felony, the prosecution may make a motion to transfer the minor from juvenile court to a court of criminal jurisdiction. The prosecution bears the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the minor is not amenable to rehabilitation while under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court.

The clear and convincing evidence standard demands a degree of certainty greater than that involved with the preponderance standard, but less than what is required by the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt Where clear and convincing proof is required, the proponent must convince the jury or judge that it is highly probable that the facts which he asserts are true.

Authority:

WIC 707(a)(1)

Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.770(a)

In re J.S. (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 205, 211 and fn. 2

In re Miguel R. (2024) 100 Cal.App.5th 152, 164

Conservatorship of O.B. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 989, 998

Second Holding:

There are five criteria set forth in Welfare and Institutions Code section 707 that a court is required to consider in deciding whether a minor should be transferred to a court of criminal jurisdiction, including ((1) the degree of criminal sophistication exhibited by the minor; (2) whether the minor can be rehabilitated prior to the expiration of the juvenile court’s jurisdiction; (3) the minor’s previous delinquent history; (4) success of previous attempts by the juvenile court to rehabilitate the minor; and (5) the circumstances and gravity of the offense alleged in the petition to have been committed by the minor.

For each of these five criteria, section 707 provides a nonexhaustive mandatory list of factors to which a juvenile court shall give weight in evaluating the criterion.

Authority:

WIC 707(a)(3)(A)-(E)

Third Holding:

Under the second factor, the court must focus on whether there is enough time to rehabilitate the minor while the minor is still eligible to remain under juvenile court jurisdiction.

Authority:

In re Miguel R. (2024) 100 Cal.App.5th 152, 166

Fourth Holding:

We review the juvenile court’s ruling on a transfer motion for abuse of discretion. The abuse of discretion standard is not a unified standard; the deference it calls for varies according to the aspect of a trial court’s ruling under review.

The juvenile court’s findings with respect to each of section 707’s five criteria are findings of fact reviewed for substantial evidence. In conducting substantial evidence review, we draw all reasonable inferences in support of the court’s findings.

The juvenile court’s ultimate finding that a minor is not amenable to rehabilitation while under its jurisdiction is likewise reviewed for substantial evidence.

Authority:

In re Miguel R. (2024) 100 Cal.App.5th 152, 165

In re O.F. (2026) 119 Cal.App.5th 133, 160

People v. Cardenas (2020) 53 Cal.App.5th 102, 119

Fifth Holding:

Because the juvenile court must make these findings by clear and convincing evidence, we review its findings by determining whether the record, viewed as a whole, contains substantial evidence from which a reasonable trier of fact could have made the finding of high probability demanded by the clear and convincing evidence standard. The juvenile] court’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo, and its application of the law to the facts is reversible only if arbitrary and capricious.

Authority:

Conservatorship of O.B. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 989, 1005

In re O.F. (2026) 119 Cal.App.5th 133, 161-162

In re Miguel R. (2024) 100 Cal.App.5th 152, 165

In re J.S. (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 205, 211