Skip to content
Name: In re Jose Z.
Case #: F042747
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 5 DCA
Opinion Date: 03/10/2004
Subsequent History: Rev. den. 6/9/04

Proposition 36 does not apply to juvenile court adjudications, and the denial of the provisions of Proposition 36 to juveniles does not violate the Equal Protection Clause. Relying on the plain language of Penal Code section 1210.1, the court held that Proposition 36 applies only to those who are convicted of nonviolent drug offenses, not to those who are found to be offenders by the juvenile court. Further, this distinction does not violate equal protection guarantees because the liberty concerns of a minor and those of an adult offender are fundamentally…

View Full Summary
Name: In re Derrick B.
Case #: F043067
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 5 DCA
Opinion Date: 03/23/2004
Subsequent History: Review granted 6/16/04: S124205

The juvenile court did not err in requiring the minor to register as a sex offender under Penal Code section 290, where the minor’s offense was not specifically listed under that section but was committed for sexual gratification or as the result of a sexual compulsion. A petition filed in 1999 alleged that the minor had violated Penal Code section 288, subdivision (a), and the minor eventually admitted a violation of section 243.4, subdivision (a), sexual battery. After several probation violations the minor was committed to the California Youth Authority and ordered to register as a sex offender…

View Full Summary
Name: In re Emilio C.
Case #: B164437
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 5
Opinion Date: 03/11/2004

The minor, who had previously been adjudicated a ward of the court under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, was committed to the California Youth Authority for a term not to exceed 17 years and 10 months, following the adjudication of a subsequent petition alleging continuous sexual abuse of a child (288.5, subd.(a)). The trial court found that the offense was one covered by section 707, subd. (b), and elected to aggregate the periods of confinement on multiple petitions, including two previously sustained ones. Appellant challenged the designation of the 288.5, subd. (a) adjudication as a 707(b) offense.…

View Full Summary
Name: In re Sheena K.
Case #: B167626
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 03/02/2004
Subsequent History: Rev. granted 6/9/04: S123980

The minor was convicted of misdemeanor battery and placed on probation, under specified terms and conditions, including that she not associate with anyone disapproved of by her probation officer, not possess any weapons, and not remain with any person known to be unlawfully armed. Appellant challenged the conditions as vague and overbroad, and contended that they violated her constitutional rights to due process, to travel, and to associate and assemble. The appellate court here agreed that the condition that appellant not associate with anyone disapproved of by the probation officer was unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. The minor…

View Full Summary
Name: In re Charles G.
Case #: C041288
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Opinion Date: 02/05/2004
Subsequent History: Rev. den. 4/21/04

Appellant was still a ward of the juvenile court at age 20 based upon delinquent conduct, when he violated probation. Probation was reinstated on the condition that appellant serve a period of confinement. In this appeal, appellant contended that the juvenile court lacked authority to detain him in an adult facility pending the violation hearing, and that after finding him in violation, it lacked the authority to sentence him to an adult facility. The appellate court found the issue moot and dismissed the appeal, as appellant had already served his term. However, the court reached the…

View Full Summary
Name: In re Colleen S.
Case #: A100590
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 3
Opinion Date: 01/29/2004
Subsequent History: None

Appellant, a minor, was convicted of vehicular manslaughter, and sentenced to an indefinite suspension of her driver's license as a condition of probation. On appeal, she challenged the suspension, arguing that Vehicle Code sections 13203, 13361, and 13556 limit the authorized period of suspension to twelve months. The appellate court agreed, and struck the condition of probation (as more than a year had elapsed since the entry of the dispositional order.) Since the sentence was unauthorized, it was not waived despite the lack of objection…

View Full Summary
Name: In re Karen A.
Case #: B164433
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 3
Opinion Date: 01/30/2004
Subsequent History: None

Appellant was a minor who was convicted of assault by force likely to commit great bodily injury. She was placed on probation with an order requiring her to pay restitution on all related losses, to be determined by the probation officer. On appeal, appellant argued that the juvenile court erred by failing to identify the losses or specify their amount in the restitution order. The appellate court here disagreed and affirmed. Welfare and Institutions Code section 730.6 provides that where the amount of restitution can't be determined at the time of sentencing, it can be determined…

View Full Summary
Name: In re Bryant R.
Case #: F041423
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 5 DCA
Opinion Date: 10/27/2003
Subsequent History: None

Under Welfare and Institutions Code section 726, the court may aggregate maximum physical confinement time for a juvenile ward under section 602, including time imposed for previously sustained petitions. Here, the minor was adjudged a ward of the court pursuant to section 602 on six separate occasions. He had exhausted his maximum confinement time on petitions one and two, by the time he of the adjudication of petition six. The court calculated the maximum term based on petitions four through six. The appellate court here affirmed the disposition order. When a minor has exhausted his available…

View Full Summary
Name: In re Juan G.
Case #: B161559
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 7
Opinion Date: 09/18/2003

Substantial evidence supported the finding that the juvenile appellant committed robbery, where appellant and a codefendant approached the victim together, and the codefendant demanded money at knifepoint. Appellant was present at the robbery, stood with the codefendant, and fled together with him after the robbery. He was in the company of the codefendant before the robbery, and was arrested with him afterwards. The juvenile court was not obligated to believe appellant's testimony that he was merely present at the scene, and the determination of credibility shall not be disturbed on appeal. However, it was an abuse…

View Full Summary
Name: In re Angela M.
Case #: B157413
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 7
Opinion Date: 09/16/2003
Subsequent History: None

The trial court was required to determine whether or not the minor had special educational needs before finding her a ward of the court under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602. The record showed she suffered from bipolar disorder, and possibly from ADHD, and a doctor recommended she be evaluated for special educational needs, thus putting the trial court on notice the minor might have special…

View Full Summary