Disposition Phase Archives | Page 4 of 12

Categories: Custody, Delinquency (602), Disposition Phase

Summary

A minor was improperly held in and committed to county jail based on a juvenile adjudication. In 2005, the then 16-year-old minor Ramon M. became a ward of the court and was released on probation after conviction of crimes related…

View Full Summary

Name: In re Luis F.

Case #: A123599

Opinion Date: 08/31/2009

Categories: Delinquency (602), Disposition Phase, Probation, Probation / Parole / PRCS

Summary

A probation condition requiring a minor to continue taking all prescribed medications was lawful but required modification. The minor appealed from an order of the court under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 declaring him a ward based on a…

View Full Summary

Name: In re L.M.

Case #: A124299

Opinion Date: 09/09/2009

Categories: Delinquency (602), Disposition Phase, Post Disposition

Summary

The juvenile court properly denied father's motion for travel costs to visit a delinquent minor where insufficient evidence was provided to the court. The 12-year-old minor was declared a court ward under section 602 and placed in a residential treatment…

View Full Summary

Name: In re Spencer S.

Case #: G040560

Opinion Date: 08/21/2009

Categories: Areas Constitutional Law, Delinquency (602), Disposition Phase, Equal Protection, Probation, Probation / Parole / PRCS

Summary

The exclusion of juvenile misdemeanants from deferred entry of judgment (DEJ), under Welfare and Institutions Code section 790 et seq., is not unconstitutional because there is a rational basis for denying misdemeanants the benefits of the program. A juvenile court…

View Full Summary

Name: In re R.O.

Case #: B208117

Opinion Date: 08/25/2009

Categories: CYA Commitment, Delinquency (602), Disposition Phase, Sentencing

Summary

Welfare and Institutions Code section 731, subdivision (c), which requires the court to consider the "facts and circumstances of the matter," gives the juvenile court discretion to select a period of confinement that is less than the minimum mandatory indeterminate…

View Full Summary

Name: In re Julian R.

Case #: S159282

Opinion Date: 08/17/2009

Categories: Delinquency (602), Disposition Phase

Summary

A juvenile court need not orally pronounce a minor's maximum period of confinement; a written statement of the commitment term is sufficient. Further, on a silent record, it will presumed that the juvenile court performed its duty under Welfare and…

View Full Summary

Name: In re H.C.

Case #: H033669

Opinion Date: 07/14/2009

Categories: Delinquency (602), Disposition Phase, Probation, Probation / Parole / PRCS

Summary

Where a condition of probation implicates constitutional rights, the condition must be narrowly drawn and sufficiently precise so as to provide notice to probationer as to the prohibited activity. Minor admitted possession of a concealed weapon (Pen. Code. sec. 1202.5,…

View Full Summary

Name: In re M.B.

Case #: F055289

Opinion Date: 06/18/2009

Categories: Delinquency (602), Disposition Phase

Summary

A juvenile may be committed to DJF for a probation violation found pursuant to section 777, subdivision (a)(2) where the offense for which the ward received probation is a DJF-eligible offense. The minor was on probation based on a Welfare…

View Full Summary

Name: In re Eddie L.

Case #: C059237

Opinion Date: 07/02/2009

Categories: Delinquency (602), Disposition Phase

Summary

Welfare and Institutions Code, section 726, subdivision (c) does not require juvenile court to make a discretionary determination regarding a minor's maximum confinement period when a minor is not committed to DJF. The juvenile court sustained an armed robbery charge…

View Full Summary

Name: Alex O. v. Superior Court

Case #: D053979

Opinion Date: 05/27/2009

Categories: Constitutional Rights, Delinquency (602), Disposition Phase, Probation, Probation / Parole / PRCS, Sentencing

Summary

A condition of probation imposed by the juvenile court which restricted the re-entry of the juvenile, a U.S. citizen living in Mexico, to the United States is essentially banishment and is unconstitutional as it did not relate to the crime…

View Full Summary