Tag Archives: Juveniles

Amelioration, Duty of the court, Juveniles, Sentencing

Case: 000272

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The matter was remanded back to this course following an earlier appeal, for reconsideration in light of People v. Franklin (2016) 63 Cal.4th 261. We once again affirmed the judgment, but remanded the matter to the trial court with instructions to determine whether petitioner was entitled to a Franklin hearing. Petitioner’s appeal was not final until 2017, after Proposition 57 went into effect on November 9, 2016. Thus, his sentence was nonfinal for purposes of Prop. 57’s application. As such, pursuant to Padilla, he is entitled to a transfer hearing

Holding:

Prop. 57 affords the right to a juvenile transfer hearing to all juveniles charged directly in adult court whose judgment was not final at the time it was enacted. Prop. 57 applies to a sentence that was imposed prior to Prop. 57 but later vacated through a subsequent habeas proceeding. Here, petitioner’s case was directly filed in adult court before Prop. 57 was enacted, but his sentence was vacated through a habeas corpus petition subsequent to the effective date. Thus, his sentence was nonfinal for purposes of Prop. 57’s application. As such, pursuant to Padilla, he is entitled to a transfer hearing. Respondent concedes this position. Thus, it is appropriate to grant the requested relief.

Authority:

People v. Superior Court of Riverside County (Lara) (2018) 4 Cal.5th 299, 304

People v. Padilla (2022) 13 Cal.5th 152, 159

Discretion, Juveniles, Probation Parole PRCS

Case: 000269

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

We conclude the electronics search condition as currently framed is invalid under Lent and In re Ricardo P. We therefore strike the condition and remand the matter to the juvenile court to consider the imposition of a modified electronics search condition in conformance with Ricardo P. and this opinion.

First Holding:

A juvenile court is authorized to impose any reasonable conditions that it may determine fitting and proper to the end that justice may be done and the reformation and rehabilitation of the ward enhanced. Notably, the permissible scope of discretion in formulating terms of juvenile probation is even greater than that allowed for adults, given that juveniles are deemed to be more in need of guidance and supervision than adults and that the state stands in the shoes of the parents in caring for the minor’s well being when it asserts jurisdiction over the minor.

Authority:

WIC 730(b)

In re Victor L. (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 902, 909–910

Second Holding:

This broad discretion, however, is not unlimited. A probation condition 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. The Lent test is conjunctive—all three prongs must be satisfied before a reviewing court will invalidate a probation term. As the Supreme Court has explained, a condition of probation that requires or forbids conduct which is not itself criminal is valid if that conduct is reasonably related to the crime of which the defendant was convicted or to future criminality.

Authority:

In re J.B. (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 749, 754

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

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

Third Holding:

The first question is whether the minor’s use of an electronic device bore a relationship to his assault of the victim with force likely to produce great bodily injury. In the context of electronics search probation conditions, some Courts of Appeal have found that use of an electronic device is related to an offense when the device was used to commit, plan, or facilitate that offense. In this case there was no indication that the minor used an electronic device to commit, plan, or facilitate his assault of the victim.

Authority:

People v. Appleton (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 717, 719–720, 724 [electronic device was involved in the offense where defendant met his victim through social media]

People v. Castellanos (2020) 51 Cal.App.5th 267, 270, 271, 275–276 [electronic devices involved in transportation of controlled substances where defendant had three cell phones in his car at the time of arrest and cell phones are frequently used in drug sales]

Fourth Holding:

Other Courts of Appeal have found that electronic devices were not related to an offense when the connection between electronic device usage and an offense was more tangential. For example, in Alonzo M., the mere fact that electronic devices were stolen during the minor’s commission of automobile burglaries and purse snatch robberies did not compel the conclusion that electronic devices related to these offenses. Similarly, in Amber K., the minor’s use of social media before and after a school fight was found to be insufficient to satisfy the first prong of Lent.

Authority:

In re Alonzo M. (2019) 40 Cal.App.5th 156, 158-164 [observing the condition could not be upheld under either of first two Lent prongs]

In re Amber K. (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 559, 564–566

Fifth Holding:

As indicated, there appears no dispute the second prong of the Lent test has been met. And for good reason: it is well-established that there is nothing inherently illegal about using electronic devices.

Authority:

In re Amber K. (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 559, 566

Sixth Holding:

The third prong of Lent requires that we assess whether the electronics search condition requires or forbids conduct that is not reasonably related to future criminality. The third prong of Lent contemplates a degree of proportionality between the burden imposed by a probation condition and the legitimate interests served by the condition. An abstract or hypothetical relationship between the probation condition and preventing future criminality is insufficient. A condition can survive only when there is information in the record establishing a connection between the search condition and the probationer’s criminal conduct or personal history and when the burden imposed by the condition is proportionate to the legitimate interests served by that condition.

Authority:

In re Ricardo P. (2019) 7 Cal.5th 1113, 1121-1122

In re Alonzo M. (2019) 40 Cal.App.5th 156, 166

Seventh Holding:

Following Ricardo P. and Alonzo M., we conclude the broad-ranging electronics search condition burdens the minor’s privacy in a manner substantially disproportionate to the probation department’s legitimate interest in monitoring” his compliance with his probation terms, including the order to stay away from the victim.

Authority:

In re Alonzo M. (2019) 40 Cal.App.5th 156, 168

Amelioration, Fines and fees, Juveniles, Retroactivity

Case: 000243

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Because of legislation enacted since the disposition hearing, the $100 restitution fine is ordered stricken in this Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 juvenile proceeding.

Holding:

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 states that the court shall not impose a separate and additional restitution fine against a minor found to be a person described in Welfare and Institutions Code section 602. Because the judgment is not final, the appellant is entitled to the ameliorative benefits of this amendment.

Authority:

WIC 730.6

In re Estrada (1965) 63 Cal.2d 740

Equal protection, Juveniles, Probation Parole PRCS, Sentencing

Case: 000187

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The defendant contends on this appeal that the trial court erroneously found he was not entitled to a Franklin hearing in his petition for writ of habeas corpus and erred in denying his Franklin motion as successive. In 2018, the defendant filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus requesting a Franklin hearing.

(The Franklin court had held that a defendant seeking to preserve evidence following a final judgment should be given an opportunity to make a record of information relevant to his youth offender parole hearing.. Franklin authorized trial courts to receive any documents, evaluations or testimony that may be relevant at an eventual youth offender parole hearing.)

That court (in 2018) denied that petition on the basis that he was not eligible for a youth offender parole hearing because he would already be released before reaching the 15 years’ threshold for youth offender parole. In 2024, the defendant filed a motion for a Franklin hearing under section 1203.01. The trial court denied that motion on the grounds that it was a successive motion. The People agree with defendant that the court erred when it denied his motion as successive. We conclude the trial court erred when it denied defendant’s motion for a Franklin hearing as successive. We reverse the court’s order and remand for the court to consider defendant’s motion under Penal Code section 1203.01.

First Holding:

Effective January 1, 2014, SB 260 (2013–2014 Reg. Sess.) enacted sections 3051, 3046(c), and 4801(c) to provide a parole eligibility mechanism for youthful offenders. Defendants who were 25 years old or younger at the time they committed the offense and were convicted of a determinate term are entitled to a youth offender parole hearing during their 15th year of incarceration. The Franklin court had held that a defendant seeking to preserve evidence following a final judgment should be given an opportunity to make a record of information relevant to his youth offender parole hearing.. Franklin authorized trial courts to receive any documents, evaluations or testimony that may be relevant at an eventual youth offender parole hearing. For defendants whose judgments were final, the proper procedure to obtain a Franklin hearing is to file a motion in superior court under the original caption and case number, citing the authority of section 1203.01 and the Cook decision.

Authority:

PEN 1203.01

People v. Franklin (2016) 63 Cal.4th 261,283-284

People v. Perez (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 612, 618

In re Cook (2019) 7 Cal.5th 439

Second Holding:

There is no express bar to successive motions or requests for a Franklin hearing under section 1203.01. The defendant’s section 1203.01 motion should not have been denied as successive.

Authority:

PEN 1203.1

People v. Franklin (2016) 63 Cal.4th 261

In re Cook (2019) 7 Cal.5th 439

Third Holding:

The trial court’s order denying a defendant’s Franklin motion is reviewed under the abuse of discretion standard. In deciding whether the court abused its discretion we ask whether the trial court’s findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence, whether its rulings of law are correct, and whether its application of the law to the facts was neither arbitrary nor capricious. Critical to the resolution of this case, we note that when a trial court’s decision rests on an error of law, that decision is an abuse of discretion.

Authority:

In re Cook (2019) 7 Cal.5th 439, 459

People v. Benzler (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 743, 749

People v. Superior Court (Humberto S.) (2008) 43 Cal.4th 737, 746

Fourth Holding:

Although defendant originally sought a Franklin hearing by filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus, as Cook explained, habeas corpus was not the proper procedure in the first instance. Accordingly, the court’s order denying the habeas petition did not bar the court from ruling on defendant’s subsequent Franklin motion, which was properly raised under section 1203.01 and Cook. As such, the trial court erred when it denied defendant’s Franklin motion on the sole basis he had already sought a Franklin hearing by filing a habeas petition. Therefore, the court abused its discretion when it denied defendant’s Franklin motion as successive.

Authority:

ADIn re Cook (2019) 7 Cal.5th 439, 457-458

Discretion, Juveniles

Case: 000140

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court erred in setting a maximum confinement time when he was released home on probation. We will strike the maximum confinement term and affirm the judgment as modified.

First Holding:

It is abuse of discretion for a juvenile court to set a maximum confinement term for a minor who is not removed from his parents’ custody

Authority:

In re A.C. (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 590, 591-592 [where a juvenile court’s order includes a maximum confinement term for a minor who is not removed from parental custody, the remedy is to strike the term]

Second Holding:

[GARY NOTE, for context, Welfare and Institutions Code section 726 states, in pertinent part, that IF a minor is removed from the custody of the parents, the court must state the maximum term, which the section also defines.]

Authority:

WIC 726

Fines and fees, Juveniles, Retroactivity

Case: 000137

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The minor contends, and the People concede, that recent amendments to Welfare and Institutions Code section 730.6 apply retroactively, requiring that the restitution fine imposed by the juvenile court be stricken.

First Holding:

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

Second Holding:

Appellant is entitled to the ameliorative benefits of this amendment.

Authority:

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

Discretion, Juveniles, Standard of review, Statutory interpretation

Case: 000133

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

In 2000, appellant was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole after being tried as an adult for two murders he committed when he was 17. In 2021, his sentence was recalled under Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (d). The prosecution filed a motion to again transfer appellant’s case from juvenile court to criminal court. The court granted the motion, and appellant challenges that ruling on appeal. We conclude that the court misapprehended one aspect of its discretion, reverse the order transferring appellant to criminal court, and remand for reconsideration of the issue.

First Holding:

In determining at a transfer hearing whether a juvenile should be tried as an adult, the court must consider five statutory factors, one of which is whether the minor can be rehabilitated prior to the expiration of the juvenile court’s jurisdiction. The court stated that juvenile jurisdiction would have ended when appellant turned 25 years old. The court was quite clear that its consideration of the relevant factor was always directed at determining whether appellant would have been rehabilitated by the age of 25.

However, the court was incorrect. The juvenile 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 Welfare and Institutions Code, Section 707. In this instance, the defendant would have been in his 40s two years after disposition hearing held in this case.

Authority:

WIC 707(d)

Second Holding:

When the appellant presents an issue of statutory interpretation, we review it de novo.

Authority:

In re Noah S. (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 410, 414

Third Holding:

Reversal is required 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. Here, the court did not express how it would have ruled had it known juvenile jurisdiction could have lasted longer. One of the few comments the court made about the defendant’s post-age 25 conduct cuts against a finding of harmlessness. Paraphrased, the court stated that there was no question before it that the defendant has grown as an adult, but that the question was whether or not that growth would have occurred before age 25. It stated that the evidence it considered at the hearing indicates his growth occurred well past the age of 25.

Authority:

People v. Gutierrez (2014) 58 Cal.4th 1354, 139

Fourth Holding:

In order to transfer a minor from juvenile court to criminal court, the court must find by clear and convincing evidence that the minor is not amenable to rehabilitation while under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court.

Authority:

WIC 707(a)(3)

Discretion

Case 000003

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief:

The defendant contends, and the People concede, the case must be remanded for the juvenile court to declare whether his grand theft offense was a misdemeanor or a felony, as required by section 702. We agree and remand with instructions.

Holding:

Juvenile court must declare whether the wobbler grand theft offense was a misdemeanor or a felony. Absent a court’s express declaration or other evidence the juvenile court was aware of, and exercised, its discretion to determine the felony or misdemeanor nature of a wobbler, the matter must be remanded. Section 702 error is not harmless unless the record shows that the juvenile court was aware of, and exercised its discretion as to each wobbler alleged against the minor.

Authority:

Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.790(a)(1)

In re Manzy W. (1997) 14 Cal.4th 1199, 1204, 1207

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

In re Ricky H. (1981) 30 Cal.3d 176, 191

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