Tag Archives: Juveniles

Juveniles, Sentencing

Case 000605

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Where the minor was not removed from the home, it was error for the court to set a maximum period of confinement.

Holding:

The juvenile court is required to specify the maximum term of confinement only when the court orders a minor removed from the physical custody of their parent or guardian. When the dispositional order includes a maximum confinement term for a minor who is not removed from parental custody, the remedy is to strike the term.

Authority:

WIC 726

In re Joseph G. (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 1735, 1744

In re A.C. (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 590, 591–592

Amelioration, Discretion, Eighth Amendment, Juveniles, Sentencing, Standard of review, Statutory interpretation

Case 000574

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The defendant filed a petition under section 1170(d) for recall of his sentence. The trial court did not appoint counsel and summarily denied appellant’s petition to recall because it found he had not been incarcerated in the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation for at least 15 years as required by section 1170(d)(1)(A). We find the trial court’s ruling on the calculation of appellant’s period of incarceration was erroneous as a matter of law, and appellant’s preconviction custody must be included to calculate he had been incarcerated for 15 years when he filed his section 1170(d) petition.

The matter is remanded for the superior court to appoint counsel and conduct the hearing as provided in section 1170(d).

First Holding:

When a defendant who was under 18 years of age at the time of the commission of the offense for which the defendant was sentenced to imprisonment for life without the possibility of parole has been incarcerated for at least 15 years, the defendant may submit to the sentencing court a petition for recall and resentencing, if the defendant meets additional statutory requirements.

Authority:

PEN 1170(d)

Second Holding:

When a trial court is not aware of the full scope of its sentencing discretion, a defendant is entitled to a remand for resentencing unless the record clearly indicates that the trial court would have reached the same conclusion even if it had been aware that it had such discretion.

Authority:

People v. Salazar (2023) 15 Cal.5th 416, 425

People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730, 771-772

Third Holding:

The empanelment of separate juries at the defendant’s original trial in 2010 was likely based on Aranda and Bruton. Broadly stated, the Aranda/Bruton rule declares that a defendant is deprived of his or her Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses when a facially incriminating statement of a nontestifying codefendant is introduced at their joint trial, even if the jury is instructed to consider the statement only against the declarant. The problem addressed in Bruton and Aranda may be solved by the use of separate juries for codefendants, with each jury to be excused at appropriate times to avoid exposure to inadmissible evidence.

Authority:

People v. Aranda (1965) 63 Cal.2d 518

Bruton v. United States (1968) 391 U.S. 123

People v. Gallardo (2017) 18 Cal.App.5th 51, 68

People v. Jackson (1996) 13 Cal.4th 1164, 1208

People v. Washington (2017) 15 Cal.App.5th 19, 27

Fourth Holding:

Appellant filed his petition based on the recall and resentencing provisions of section 1170(d), effective January 1, 2013. Under Graham, the Eighth Amendment prohibits LWOP sentences for juvenile offenders who committed non-homicide offenses. In response to Graham, the Legislature enacted section 1170(d), creating a recall and resentencing procedure for certain juvenile offenders sentenced to LWOP terms.

Authority:

In re Kirchner (2017) 2 Cal.5th 1040, 1049

People v. Gibson (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 315, 322–323

Graham v. Florida (2010) 560 U.S. 48

People v. Sorto (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 435, 442

Fifth Holding:

On appeal, we review statutory interpretations de novo. We review the trial court’s factual findings to determine whether they are supported by substantial evidence, and do not reweigh or reinterpret the evidence.

Authority:

People v. Walker (2024) 16 Cal.5th 1024, 1032

People v. Millard (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 7, 26

Sixth Holding:

Absent a specific statutory definition of “has been incarcerated for at least 15 years” we may look to its plain meaning as understood by the ordinary person, which would typically be a dictionary definition. The Legislature did not use the word sentenced in section 1170(d)(1)(A). Instead, it used the word “incarcerated.”

Based on the plain meaning of “incarcerated,” the defendant’s period of incarceration for purposes of a section 1170,(d)(1)(A) began to run on the date the defendant was placed in jail, i.e., incarcerated, for the relevant charges.

Authority:

People v. Ruiz (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 1027, 1031, 1032

Seventh Holding:

Section 1171 expressly addresses the trial court’s procedures in postconviction proceedings to modify a sentence or conviction pursuant to an ameliorative statute. It defines a postconviction proceeding to mean a proceeding to modify a sentence or conviction pursuant to an ameliorative statute. Ameliorative statutes include, but are not limited to, Sections 1170.18, 1172.1, 1172.6, 1172.7, and 1172.75. Section 1171(c)(1) states that upon receiving a request to begin a postconviction proceeding that is authorized in law, the court shall consider whether to appoint counsel to represent the defendant. This section does not prevent the court from assigning counsel at a later time.

Authority:

PEN 1171

Abstracts and Minutes, Duty of the court, Juveniles, Sentencing

Case 000568

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The juvenile court erred in not declaring whether it found the minor’s wobbler offense (section 29610) to be a misdemeanor or a felony.

First Holding:

An offense under Penal Code section 29610 is a wobbler punishable by imprisonment or jail.

Authority:

In re D.D. (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 824, 829

Second Holding:

Welf. and Inst. Code section 702 requires the juvenile court to declare on the record at a hearing before or at the time of disposition its choice whether to treat an alleged wobbler as a misdemeanor or as a felony. Neither the pleading, the minute order, nor the setting of a felony-level period of confinement may substitute for the required declaration. The juvenile court’s failure to make this declaration as to each wobbler offense is error. A juvenile court’s failure to comply with section 702’s express declaration requirement must be corrected on remand unless the record as a whole establishes that the juvenile court was aware of, and exercised its discretion to determine the felony or misdemeanor nature of a wobbler.

Authority:

WIC 702

In re F.M. (2023) 14 Cal.5th 701, 712

Third Holding:

The oral pronouncement of judgment ordinarily controls when there is a discrepancy between it and the clerical recording of the judgment. Although the minute order reflects that the court declared the offense in count 1 a felony, the reporter’s transcript of the oral pronouncement reflects no such declaration. The latter controls.

Authority:

People v. Serrano (2024) 100 Cal.App.5th 1324, 1340

Appellate Principles, Discretion, Probation Parole PRCS, Sentencing, Standard of review, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Case 000563

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The absence in this record of the necessary gang nexus requires the gang conditions of probation ordered here be stricken. The gang conditions were “25. Must not spend time with any person you know, or whom your probation officer tells you, is a gang member”; and “26. Must not wear or display any clothing, tattoos, or signs you know, or your probation officer tells you is evidence of affiliation with or membership in a gang. The word ‘gang’ means a criminal street gang as defined in California Penal Code Section 186.22.”

First Holding:

Crimes need not be gang-related to warrant the imposition of gang terms as conditions of probation.

Authority:

In re Ricardo P. (2019) 7 Cal.5th 1113, 1120–1121

Second Holding:

On appeal, we review conditions of probation for abuse of discretion. That is, a reviewing court will disturb the trial court’s decision to impose a particular condition of probation only if, under all the circumstances, that choice is arbitrary and capricious and is wholly unreasonable.

Authority:

People v. Olguin (2008) 45 Cal.4th 375, 379

People v. Moran (2016) 1 Cal.5th 398, 403

Third Holding:

A condition of probation will not be held invalid unless 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

Authority:

People v. Lent (1975) 15 Cal.3d 481, 486

In re Ricardo P. (2019) 7 Cal.5th 1113, 1118–1119 [applying the three-part Lent standard to juvenile probation conditions]

Fourth Holding:

Courts may impose conditions that have a relationship to the crime of which the offender was convicted and may also impose conditions to foster rehabilitation and to protect public safety.

Authority:

People v. Olguin (2008) 45 Cal.4th 375, 379

People v. Carbajal (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1114, 1120

Fifth Holding:

The conditions of probation aimed at rehabilitating the offender need not be so strictly tied to the offender’s precise crime as long as they are reasonably directed at curbing an offender’s future criminality. But there must be a strong connection between the burdens imposed by the challenged condition and a probationer’s criminal conduct or personal history. Conditions ordered may be properly based upon information in a probation report that raises concerns about future criminality unrelated to a prior offense. Thus, even if a condition of probation has no relationship to the crime of which a defendant was convicted and involves conduct that is not itself criminal, the condition is valid as long the condition is reasonably related to preventing future criminality.

Authority:

People v. Moran (2016) 1 Cal.5th 398, 404-405

In re Ricardo P. (2019) 7 Cal.5th 1113, 1120-1122

People v. Olguin (2008) 45 Cal.4th 375, 380

People v. Carbajal (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1114, 1121

Sixth Holding:

Nothing in the record suggests the offenses underlying the minor’s conduct were gang-related. Thus, we examine the record as a whole to determine if the gang conditions were reasonably related to preventing future criminality. In doing so, we find no indication of gang involvement. The record here presents no nexus sufficient to warrant the order of gang conditions

Authority:

People v. Olguin (2008) 45 Cal.4th 375, 379-380

In re Edward B. (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 1228, 1236 [striking gang conditions because any connection between the minor’s offense and gang activity is speculation]

Seventh Holding:

Though the prosecutor argued in favor of the gangs condition, without a more specific connection to the record, expert opinion, or the minor’s personal circumstances, a district attorney’s non-expert observations cannot reasonably justify the imposition of gang conditions.

Authority:

People v. Stanley (2006) 39 Cal.4th 913, 961 fn. 10 [It is axiomatic that argument is not evidence]

Equal protection, Juveniles, Sentencing

Case 000552

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court erred in concluding that a sentence of 45 years to life is not the functional equivalent of a sentence to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole (LWOP), within the context of section 1170(d) for those who committed an offense as a juvenile and were convicted as an adult.

First Holding:

Section 1170(d)(1)(A) provides that when a defendant who was under 18 years of age at the time of the commission of the offense for which the defendant was sentenced to imprisonment for life without the possibility of parole has been incarcerated for at least 15 years, the defendant may submit to the sentencing court a petition for recall and resentencing. Where the length of a sentence is the functional equivalent of LWOP, it is a denial of equal protection to exclude the defendant from consideration under section 1170(d).

Authority:

PEN 1170

People v. Heard (2022) 83 Cal.App.5th 608

People v. Contreras (2018) 4 Cal.5th 349 [50 years to life is the functional equivalent of LWOP for a nonhomicide juvenile offender in the Eighth Amendment context]

Second Holding:

The People contend that defendant’s current eligibility for early youth offender parole under section 3051 and future eligibility at age 50 for elderly parole under section 3055 render him ineligible for relief under section 1170(d). However, that question is being considered by the Supreme Court in Munoz. Pending that decision, we agree with the reasoning in Heard that section 3051 eligibility does not defeat defendant’s section 1170(d) petition.

Authority:

People v. Munoz (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 499, review granted June 25, 2025, S290828

People v. Sorto (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 435

People v. Bagsby (2024) 106 Cal.App.5th 1040

Juveniles, Sentencing

Case 000549

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Upon determining that the minor violated probation by using marijuana, the juvenile court committed the minor to juvenile hall for 18 months, a sentence that the court had initially stayed in favor of home detention on probation with GPS monitoring. On appeal, the minor argues that the juvenile court abused its discretion in automatically lifting the stay and imposing the commitment without a reassessment of the minor’s circumstances. The juvenile court erred in imposing the 18-month commitment without considering relevant factors and will vacate the disposition order and remand for the court to conduct a new disposition hearing.

First Holding:

The juvenile court’s decision may be reversed on appeal only upon a showing that the court abused its discretion in committing the minor to juvenile hall.

Authority:

In re Jose T. (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 1142, 1147

Second Holding:

A juvenile court cannot lift an imposed, stayed or suspended term of confinement without meeting the requirements of Welfare and Institutions Code section 777. Section 777 requires that an order changing or modifying a previous order by removing a minor from the physical custody of a parent and directing commitment to a county institution shall be made only after a noticed hearing.

Authority:

In re Gabriel T. (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 952, 960

In re Jose T. (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 1142, 1147

Third Holding:

In order to commit the minor to juvenile hall, the court must be fully satisfied that the minor’s mental and physical condition and qualifications render it probable the minor will benefit from the commitment. To determine what is appropriate under a given set of circumstances, a court must review those circumstances every time the minor appears for a dispositional hearing. Juvenile courts must consider safety and protection of the public and the best interests of the minor in all deliberations. Violation of a juvenile court’s order cannot lead automatically to imposition of some reserved measure, but requires a complete review of the order and such amendments as the court finds meet and proper under the governing statutory criteria.

Authority:

WIC 734

WIC 202

In re Gabriel T. (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 952, 960

In re Jose T. (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 1142, 1147-1148 [The juvenile court must determine the best manner in which to facilitate the rehabilitation of the minor]

In re Chad S. (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 607, 614

In re Ronnie P. (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1079, 1088-1089

Juveniles

Case 000533

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

When a minor is not removed from the custody of the parents, it is error for the court to declare the maximum confinement time the minor faces.

Holding:

Because the court did not remove the minor from the custody of his parents and instead ordered him to reside in his mother’s custody, the court should not have specified a maximum time of confinement in its dispositional order. Accordingly, we will modify the dispositional order to strike the provision setting a maximum confinement time.

Authority:

WIC 726(d)(1)

In re G.C. (2020) 8 Cal.5th 1119, 1129

In re P.A. (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 23, 32

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

In re A.C. (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 590, 592

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

Case 000482

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

No substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s order sustaining allegations relating to property theft. The minor came into the store with two adult males. One of the adults asked the clerk to bring him clothes that matched shoes he had previously purchased. The group took six items into a fitting room. Subsequently, one of the adults asked the clerk for different sizes and she went to the back of the store to get them. When she returned to the fitting room, only the two adults were there. The clerk did not see the minor leave. Security camera footage showed the minor leaving the store about five minutes after the group had entered the fitting room. Shortly thereafter, the two adults came out of the fitting room, returned five items to the clerk, and left. The sixth item, a green sweater, was missing from the store.

The possibility that the minor stole the sweater or otherwise aided and abetted the theft is insufficient. Accordingly, no substantial evidence supports the true findings.

First Holding:

Our review of the minors’ substantial evidence claim is governed by the same standard applicable to adult criminal cases. In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we must 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.

Evidence that merely raises a strong suspicion of the defendant’s guilt is not sufficient to support a conviction. Suspicion is not evidence, it merely raises a possibility, and this is not a sufficient basis for an inference of fact. The substantial evidence rule mandates consideration of the weight of the evidence before deferring to the conclusions drawn from the evidence by the trier of fact.

In determining whether the record is sufficient the appellate court can give credit only to substantial evidence, i.e., evidence that reasonably inspires confidence and is of solid value. Mere conjecture, surmise, or suspicion is not the equivalent of reasonable inference and does not constitute proof.

Authority:

In re V.V. (2011) 51 Cal.4th 1020, 1026

People v. Collins (2025) 17 Cal.5th 293, 307-308

Second Holding:

An aider and abettor is one who acts with knowledge of the criminal purpose of the perpetrator and with an intent or purpose either of committing, or of encouraging or facilitating commission of, the offense.

Authority:

People v. Smith (2014) 60 Cal.4th 603, 611

Third Holding:

The possibility that the minor stole the sweater or otherwise aided and abetted the theft is insufficient. Accordingly, no substantial evidence supports the true findings.

Authority:

People v. Collins (2025) 17 Cal.5th 293, 307

In re Leanna W. (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 735, 741, 744 [where liquor was missing and property was damaged after the minor hosted a party at her grandmother’s home while her grandmother was away, no substantial evidence supported burglary and vandalism findings because the fact that the minor was present when the liquor was used does not show that she actually consumed it, much less that she had the specific intent to take it when she entered the house and there is no evidence that the minor was the person who damaged or destroyed the property]

Appellate Principles, Discretion, Standard of review

Case 000479

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

In this People’s appeal from the order of the juvenile court denying its motion to transfer the juvenile matter to adult court, the order retaining jurisdiction in juvenile court is affirmed, even though the respondent is well over 25 years of age.

First Holding:

We review the juvenile court’s ruling on a transfer motion for abuse of discretion. The court’s factual findings are reviewed for substantial evidence, and its legal conclusions are reviewed de novo. A decision based on insufficient evidence or the court’s erroneous understanding of applicable law is subject to reversal. But we do not reweigh the evidence and we do not substitute our discretion for the discretion exercised by the trial court. We draw all reasonable inferences in support of the court’s findings, not against them. We are concerned only with whether the circumstances reasonably justify the trier of fact’s findings. When evidence reasonably justifies the trier of fact’s findings, the opinion of the reviewing court that the circumstances might also reasonably be reconciled with a contrary finding does not warrant a reversal of the judgment.

Authority:

In re Miguel R. (2024) 100 Cal.App.5th 152, 165, 169

Kevin P. v. Superior Court (2020) 57 Cal.App.5th 173, 187

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

Second Holding:

The ultimate question for the juvenile court in a transfer petition is whether a minor is amenable to rehabilitation before the juvenile court’s jurisdiction expires. To order a minor’s transfer to a court of criminal jurisdiction, the juvenile court must find by clear and convincing evidence that the minor is not amenable to rehabilitation while under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court, which for persons 25 years or older extends for up to two years from the date of disposition. 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.

Authority:

WIC 607(d) [The court may retain jurisdiction over a person who is 25 years of age or older for a period not to exceed two years from the date of disposition if the person is found to be a person described in Section 602 by reason of the commission of an offense listed in subdivision (b) of Section 707. The court shall exercise jurisdiction in conformance with the objectives of the juvenile court.]

WIC 707(a)(3)

In re E.P. (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 409, 416

In re Miguel R. (2024) 100 Cal.App.5th 152, 167

Third Holding:

In making that determination, the juvenile court must consider five specific factors. The statute also sets forth a nonexhaustive list of relevant factors for the juvenile court to consider with respect to each of the five criteria. If the juvenile court orders a transfer to criminal court, it must recite the basis for its decision in an order entered upon the minutes, which shall include the reasons supporting the court’s finding that the minor is not amenable to rehabilitation while under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court.

Authority:

WIC 707(a)(3)

In re J.S. (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 205, 212

Fourth Holding:

The language used in a statute or constitutional provision should be given its ordinary meaning, and if the language is clear and unambiguous there is no need for construction, nor is it necessary to resort to indicia of the intent of the Legislature (in the case of a statute) or of the voters (in the case of a provision adopted by the voters). Courts generally must accord significance, if possible, to every word, phrase and sentence in pursuance of the legislative purpose, and a construction making some words surplusage is to be avoided.

The words of the statute must be construed in context, keeping in mind the statutory purpose, and statutes or statutory sections relating to the same subject must be harmonized, both internally and with each other, to the extent possible. We examine statutory language, not in isolation, but in the context of the statutory framework as a whole to discern its scope and purpose and to harmonize the various parts of the enactment.

Authority:

People v. Valencia (2017) 3 Cal.5th 347, 357

Lungren v. Deukmejian (1988) 45 Cal.3d 727, 735

Dyna-Med, Inc. v. Fair Employment and Housing Com. (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1379, 1387

People v. Prudholme (2023) 14 Cal.5th 961, 975

Fifth Holding:

Language in a judicial opinion is to be understood in accordance with the facts and issues before the court. An opinion is not authority for propositions not considered. Thus, a decision is authority only for the points actually involved and actually decided.

Authority:

People v. Knoller (2007) 41 Cal.4th 139, 154–155

People v. Brooks (2017) 3 Cal.5th 1, 110

Sixth Holding:

Failure to offer reasoned analysis of an issue constitutes a waiver. When an appellant fails to raise a point, or asserts it but fails to support it with reasoned argument and citations to authority, we treat the point as waived. The People’s failure to develop a legal analysis that is tethered to the issue they raised and is supported by relevant authority compels rejection of their claim of error. We will not develop that analysis for them.

Authority:

Rule 8.204(a)(1)(B) [Each brief must state each point under a separate heading or subheading summarizing the point, and support each point by argument and, if possible, by citation of authority]

Trinity Risk Management, LLC v. Simplified Labor Staffing Solutions, Inc. (2021) 59 Cal.App.5th 995, 1008

Perry v. City of San Diego (2021) 65 Cal.App.5th 172, 188, fn. 8 [It is not this court’s role to connect the dots]

Juveniles, Sentencing

Case 000449

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The juvenile court lacked authority to commit the minor to the Secure Youth Treatment Facility, improperly imposed a restitution fine, and miscalculated the maximum confinement term. We reverse the order imposing the restitution fine, and remand for a new disposition hearing. Although the oral pronouncement did not address restitution, the minute order reflects a $240 restitution fine.

First Holding:

A minor can be committed to a Secure Youth Treatment Facility (SYTF) only if (1) The juvenile is adjudicated and found to be a ward of the court based on an offense listed in Welfare and Institutions Code section 707(b) and (2) The adjudication described in criteria (1) is the most recent offense for which the juvenile has been adjudicated. The phrase “most recent” describes when the minor committed the offense, not when the petition is adjudicated.

Appellant’s most recent offenses, criminal threats and burglary, are not among the offenses described in section 707(b). Accordingly, because these offenses were committed after appellant committed an assault with a firearm, an offense that is included in section 707(b), the juvenile court was not authorized to commit appellant to a SYTF. Remand is, therefore, necessary to allow the court to conduct a new disposition hearing

Authority:

WIC 875

In re B.J. (2020) 49 Cal.App.5th 646, 648

Second Holding:

The juvenile court imposed a $240 restitution fine under former section 730.6. While this appeal was pending, the Legislature amended section 730.6 and removed the requirement that a minor pay a restitution fine. The relevant portion of the statute now provides that the court shall not impose a separate and additional restitution fine against a minor found to be a person described in Section 602.

Authority:

WIC 730.6

In re Estrada (1965) 63 Cal.2d 740, 745-746 [ameliorative legislation changes applicable to cases pending on appeal]

Third Holding:

A court shall not commit a juvenile to any juvenile facility for a period that exceeds the middle term of imprisonment that could be imposed upon an adult convicted of the same offense. The aggregate term for an adult convicted of two or more felonies and receiving consecutive terms is the principal (i.e., the greatest term imposed) term plus the subordinate (i.e., other felony conviction with a consecutive term) term. Here, the middle term for both counts is three years. The subordinate term is one-third of the middle term. Therefore, the maximum that term of confinement is four years, or 1,460 days, not the 2,540 days set by the court.

Authority:

WIC 730(a)(2)

PEN 1170.1(a)

Juveniles, Sentencing

Case: 000428

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The juvenile court’s review of the probation report and relation motions before determining jurisdiction was prejudicial error and merits reversal.

First Holding:

The history of section 701 indicates that the Legislature intended to create a bifurcated juvenile court procedure in which the court would first determine whether the facts of the case would support the jurisdiction of the court in declaring wardship and thereafter would consider the social study report at a hearing on the appropriate disposition of that ward. The primary purpose of the jurisdictional hearing “is to determine whether sufficient evidence exists to declare the minor a ward of the juvenile court. If the court finds that the minor is a person described in section 602, the court must determine whether the minor’s offense would be a misdemeanor or a felony if committed by an adult. The court then proceeds to hold a disposition hearing.

Authority:

WIC 701

In re Gladys R. (1970) 1 Cal.3d 855, 859

In re P.A. (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 23, 31–32

Second Holding:

At the jurisdictional hearing, the admission and exclusion of evidence shall be pursuant to the rules of evidence established by the Evidence Code and by judicial decision. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt supported by evidence, legally admissible in the trial of criminal cases, must be adduced to support a finding that the minor is a person described by [Welfare & Institutions Code] [s]ection 602. Rule 5.780(c) further provides that the juvenile court must not read or consider any portion of a probation report relating to the contested petition before or during a contested jurisdiction hearing.

Authority:

WIC 701

Rules of Court, rule 5.780(c)

Third Holding:

The juvenile court’s erroneous consideration of a probation report before determining jurisdiction is reviewed for harmless error under Watson. Under that standard, we determine whether it is reasonably probable that a result more favorable to the appealing party would have been reached in the absence of the error.

Authority:

People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836

Fourth Holding:

An objection is sufficient if it fairly apprises the trial court of the issue it is being called upon to decide. In a criminal case, the objection will be deemed preserved if, despite inadequate phrasing, the record shows that the court understood the issue presented. In any event, to the extent the court did not understand the issue based on its colloquy with counsel, we exercise our discretion to reach the merits.

Authority:

People v. Scott (1978) 21 Cal.3d 284, 290

People v. Williams (1998) 17 Cal.4th 148, 161, fn. 6 [An appellate court is generally not prohibited from reaching a question that has not been preserved for review by a party]

Fifth Holding:

Invited error bars a claim on appeal when a defendant, for tactical reasons, makes a request acceded to by the trial court and claims on appeal that the court erred in granting the request.

Authority:

People v. Russell (2010) 50 Cal.4th 1228, 1250

Sixth Holding:

If the jurisdictional facts presented at the hearing are far from conclusive, the juvenile court’s review of the probation report prior to determining jurisdiction constitutes prejudicial error. Thus, if the determination of jurisdiction is made by closely balanced evidence, reversal is proper.

Authority:

In re Gladys R. (1970) 1 Cal.3d 855, 862

In re James B. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 862, 875

Discretion, Duty of the court, Juveniles, Standard of review

Case: 000415

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court failed to show it recognized and exercised its discretion to designate second degree burglary as a felony or a misdemeanor, and the program condition of probation delegated impermissibly broad discretion to the probation officer

First Holding:

Second degree burglary is a “wobbler,” that is, an offense that may be punished as either a felony or a misdemeanor. This determination is important not only because felonies are subject to longer periods of confinement, but also because felony convictions have additional adverse consequences, including use without limitation for impeachment under Proposition 8 in subsequent criminal proceedings, enhancement of sentences, and the general blight upon the character of persons convicted of felonies. To ensure that juvenile courts are aware of their discretion to charge wobblers as misdemeanors and that they consciously choose to treat wobblers committed by juveniles as felonies, juvenile courts are required to expressly declare how they are treating such offenses. If the minor is found to have committed an offense which would in the case of an adult be punishable alternatively as a felony or a misdemeanor, the court shall declare the offense to be a misdemeanor or felony.

Authority:

WIC 707

People v. Williams (2010) 49 Cal.4th 405, 461, fn. 6

In re Manzy W. (1997) 14 Cal.4th 1199, 1207, 1209

In re Kenneth H. (1983) 33 Cal.3d 616, 619, fn. 3

Second Holding:

Although remand is not automatically required when a juvenile court fails to expressly declare that a wobbler is a felony or misdemeanor, to establish prejudice a juvenile need not show a reasonable probability of a more favorable outcome. Also, challenges under Welfare and Institutions Code section 702 are not forfeited by failure to object at trial. Instead, in this context, the key issue is whether the record as a whole establishes that the juvenile court was aware of its discretion to treat the offense as a misdemeanor and to state a misdemeanor-length confinement limit. The record in this case does not reflect that the court was aware of its discretion to properly exercise it. A minute order may not substitute for a declaration by the juvenile court as to whether an offense is a misdemeanor or a felony.

Authority:

In re F.M. (2023) 14 Cal.5th 701, 704, 711-714, 717

In re Manzy W. (1997) 14 Cal.4th 1199, 1209

Third Holding:

We review juvenile placement decisions for abuse of discretion. It was not an abuse of discretion to order the minor to be placed in a secure facility.

Authority:

In re Nicole H. (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 1150, 1154

Fourth Holding:

In placing the minor in a secure facility, the juvenile court imposed a number of terms and conditions, including a requirement that he participate in and complete any appropriate programs as directed by [his] Probation Officer. We review orders of this nature de novo. This condition is an improper delegation of judicial authority. Probation conditions may be challenged for the first time on appeal if they are challenged as unconstitutional on their face and the challenge therefore presents a pure question of law.

Authority:

In re Sheena K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 875, 888

Fifth Holding:

Although juvenile courts have greater discretion to formulate probation terms than adult criminal courts, their discretion to delegate authority is restricted by the separation-of-powers doctrine. Under the California Constitution, separation of powers does not mean an entire or complete separation of powers or functions, which would be impracticable, if not impossible. Thus, a court may delegate to a probation officer authority to specify the details necessary to effectuate the court’s probation conditions. However, the separation-of-powers doctrine limits the delegation of judicial authority to nonjudicial officers, especially in the absence of judicial supervision and review of the exercise of that authority. Consequently, a court may not delegate complete discretion over a significant aspect of the court’s legal control. To satisfy the separation-of-powers doctrine, a court delegating judicial authority to a probation officer must dictate the basic policy of a condition of probation.

Authority:

In re Victor L. (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 902, 910, 919

In re D.N. (2022) 14 Cal.5th 202, 208-209, 212

People v. Smith (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 897, 902, 903 [holding impermissible delegation of authority permitting probation officer to choose between residential and outpatient substance abuse programs]

People v. O’Neal (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1351, 1359 [the court’s order cannot be entirely open-ended]

People v. Leon (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 943, 952 [holding impermissible delegation of authority permitting probation officer to authorize probationer to attend court proceedings and otherwise barring probationer from attending court proceedings unless a party or witness]