Skip to content
Name: In re T.P.
Case #: B209520
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 6
Opinion Date: 09/17/2009
Summary

For purposes of Welfare and Institutions Code section 790 (deferred entry of judgment [DEJ]), a finding that minor has violated probation is not the equivalent of a revocation of probation, the latter which would result in DEJ ineligibility. Minor was declared a ward of the court and placed on formal probation in 2007. Thereafter, he admitted violating the terms of probation on two occasions and the court continued him on probation with modifications. In 2008, a third petition for violation of probation was filed, along with the prosecutor’s declaration that the minor was ineligible for DEJ because he had previously been placed on probation and it had been revoked. (Welf. & Inst. Code section 790, subd. (a)(4).) The appellate court agreed with minor, and the Attorney General conceded, that a finding that minor violated probation, alone, is not the equivalent of actual revocation. (People v. Coleman (1975) 13 Cal.3d 867, 895, fn. 22.) Here because the court did not expressly revoke the minor’s probation, minor was eligible for consideration for DEJ.