Skip to content
Name: In re Taylor C. (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 492
Case #: A168282
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 3
Opinion Date: 04/16/2024

Juvenile was statutorily ineligible for sealing of juvenile records because of an offense requiring sex offender registration, even though the juvenile court dismissed his wardship petition. Taylor was declared a ward of the court at age 14. After his wardship ended several years later, he successfully moved to dismiss his wardship petitions under Welfare and Institutions Code section 782. He then sought to seal his juvenile court records. However, the juvenile court denied his request on grounds that his prior adjudications for committing forcible lewd conduct made his records ineligible for sealing under section 781, subdivision (a)(1)(F). Taylor appealed, arguing that…

View Full Summary
Name: In re J.S. (2024) 100 Cal.App.5th 246
Case #: C099115
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Opinion Date: 03/05/2024

Juvenile was not foreclosed from the record sealing provision of Welfare and Institutions Code section 786 because his subsequent finding of wardship was not based on a felony offense or a misdemeanor involving moral turpitude. J.S. was adjudged a ward of the juvenile court and placed on formal probation. About ten months later, J.S. was again adjudged a ward of the juvenile court based on a finding that he committed a misdemeanor battery. Following the successful completion of probation, the juvenile court ordered that all records pertaining to the second juvenile wardship petition be sealed pursuant to section 786, but…

View Full Summary
Name: In re M.B. (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 435
Case #: A166408
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 3
Opinion Date: 01/31/2024

The maximum term of confinement of 22-years-to-life set by the juvenile court was unauthorized. The juvenile court committed the minor to a secured youth treatment facility (SYTF) under Welfare and Institutions Code section 875, after he admitted attempted murder and various enhancement allegations. The court stated a baseline term of confinement of four years, pursuant to section 875(b), and set a maximum term of confinement of 22-years-to-life under subdivision (c) of that section. The court also ordered that the minor’s pre-commitment credits be applied against the maximum term of confinement. The minor appealed, arguing that the juvenile court lacked jurisdiction…

View Full Summary
Name: In re K.B. (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 348
Case #: C098376
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Opinion Date: 01/30/2024

A juvenile ward’s commission of an infraction following his otherwise successful completion of probation did not render him ineligible for dismissal of his wardship petition and sealing of records. The minor was placed on probation after admitting a count of disturbing the peace. A few months later, the minor admitted two felony counts of vandalism and two misdemeanor counts of burglary and the juvenile court continued his wardship and probation. His last offense was possession of cannabis for sale, an infraction. Over a year later, the probation department filed an application for dismissal of the minor’s wardship and all juvenile…

View Full Summary
Name: In re Tony R. (2023) 98 Cal.App.5th 395
Case #: A166850
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 12/28/2023

A juvenile ward’s good behavior and positive performance at a secured youth treatment facility does not automatically entitle him to a six-month reduction of his baseline term of confinement. The 14-year-old minor and two other youths were involved in a robbery that resulted in severe injuries to the victims. The minor pleaded no contest to one count of attempted murder, one count of second degree robbery, and admitted enhancements for personal use of a firearm, infliction of great bodily injury causing coma and paralysis, and infliction of great bodily injury on an elderly victim. He was committed to a secured youth…

View Full Summary
Name: In re J.P. (2023) 94 Cal.App.5th 74
Case #: E080284
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 08/03/2023

Welfare and Institutions Code section 782 gives the juvenile court discretion to strike individual counts in a 602 petition to change the “most recent” offense into one that is SYTF eligible. The district attorney filed a 602 petition against J.P. alleging second degree robbery, assault with a firearm, and carrying a loaded firearm not registered to him in a vehicle. At a contested jurisdictional hearing, the court found all three allegations true. At disposition, the district attorney moved to strike the gun possession offense in order to make the counts of second degree robbery and assault with a firearm (both…

View Full Summary
Name: In re A.B. (2023) 94 Cal.App.5th 82
Case #: A165499
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 5
Opinion Date: 08/03/2023

Welfare and Institutions Code section 781 does not bar supplemental petitions to seal juvenile records. In 2009, when A.B. was 13, he pleaded no contest to two charges, was declared a ward of the juvenile court, and was placed on probation, which ended in 2014. Eight years later, the juvenile court granted A.B.’s initial petition to seal his juvenile records under section 781. But when A.B. filed another petition, this time listing additional agencies that had access to his records yet were not listed in the initial petition or sealing order, the court denied the petition on the ground that…

View Full Summary
Name: In re T.A. (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 347
Case #: E079346
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 03/23/2023
Subsequent History: Ordered published 4/11/2023

Although juvenile offender was entitled to the ameliorative benefits of amended Welfare and Institutions Code section 707, any error resulting from the application of the prior version was harmless under Watson and remand was unnecessary. In April 2020, the Court of Appeal conditionally reversed T.A.’s 2018 judgment for second degree murder and remanded for a transfer hearing in light of Proposition 57. In May 2022, the juvenile court granted the People’s motion to transfer T.A. to adult court and reinstate the judgment. On appeal, T.A. argued that remand was necessary to allow the juvenile court to reconsider its ruling in…

View Full Summary
Name: In re S.S. (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 1277
Case #: C097055
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Opinion Date: 03/30/2023

Minor is entitled to a new transfer/amenability hearing under the current version of Welfare and Institutions Code section 707, which was significantly amended by Assembly Bill No. 2361 (effective 1/1/2023). Following a hearing to transfer S.S. to a court of criminal jurisdiction for allegations including murder, the juvenile court found S.S. unfit to be treated under the juvenile law based on the standards set forth in former section 707 and transferred the case to criminal court. S.S. appealed. Held: Reversed and remanded. AB 2361 amended section 707 to (1) increase the prosecution’s burden from the preponderance of the evidence to…

View Full Summary
Name: K.R. v. Superior Court (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 1193
Case #: B321655
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 03/30/2023

The juvenile court was not required to dismiss minor's delinquency case under Welfare and Institutions Code section 709 even though the court did not make a final ruling on his competency before the one-year deadline for remediation services. While murder and other allegations were pending, the juvenile court found K.R. was incompetent to stand trial and referred him to remediation services. There were delays to the process, including a three-month delay to the start of remediation services due to the COVID-19 pandemic, litigation over the issue of whether the People could retain their own psychologist to examine K.R., and the…

View Full Summary