Skip to content
Name: In re D.J.
Case #: A125867
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 4
Opinion Date: 06/03/2010

Allegations of probation violations were not contained in a “petition” within the meaning of Welfare & Institutions Code section 733, subdivision (c) and did not foreclose a commitment to the Department of Juvenile Justice. The minor was subject to juvenile court jurisdiction based on his admission to a petition alleging robbery, a serious felony. Subsequently the prosecution filed a 2006 version of JV-600, a Judicial Council form indicating a violation of section 602 and alleging that it was a supplemental petition pursuant to section 777, subdivision (a) based on the commission of a new offense, a burglary, which was a violation of the condition to obey all laws. There was an amended filing on the current version of JV-600 and labeled “First Amended Notice of W&I Section 777(a) Petition.” Admission of those petitions did not supersede the DJJ-eligible robbery count. The court found that the Legislature’s intent in section 733 could not be to force juvenile judges to order a DJJ-eligible minor to DJJ immediately or limit them to a grant of probation which would forfeit a DJJ commitment in the event of a probation violation. The court found the prosecution’s intent was to charge only probation violations rather than new criminal offenses, despite the labeling and reference to section 602.