Skip to content
Name: In re J.L.
Case #: H032639
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 6 DCA
Opinion Date: 10/16/2008

Although Welfare and Institutions Code section 733 does not have a provision giving the juvenile court authority to dismiss an admitted and sustained petition to avoid restrictions on DJJ commitment, the court can set aside findings and dismiss a petition under section 782. In May 2006, the minor, who was already a court ward on probation, admitted an assault (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1)) that had been alleged in a section 602 petition. At disposition, the court continued the same placement. In August 2006, a section 777 pleading was filed alleging the minor absconded from his court-ordered…

View Full Summary
Name: In re G. V.
Case #: E044318
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 10/27/2008

Welfare and Institutions Code section 742.16, subdivision (a) does not limit the juvenile court's discretion in ordering probation conditions on minors who commit vandalism. Rather, the statute mandates certain additional, specific probation conditions in vandalism cases. The juvenile court declared appellant a ward of the court after he admitted committing an act of vandalism. The court placed appellant on probation and, over objection, ordered him to perform 100 hours of community service in a graffiti abatement program, and to pay victim restitution for the damage to the property. Appellant argued that under Welfare and Institutions Code…

View Full Summary
Name: In re Jonathan T.
Case #: E043805
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 08/29/2008

Maximum confinement time was six years where the minor was not charged with, and did not admit, a robbery in concert. On appeal from his conviction for a home invasion robbery, the minor argued that the maximum confinement time should have been six years, rather than nine years, because it was not alleged, and he did not admit, that the robbery was committed in concert. Respondent argued that the fact of whether the robbery was in concert was a sentencing factor that did not need to be pled, and that the minor was on notice that he was pleading to…

View Full Summary
Name: In re Lorenzo L.
Case #: C055693
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Opinion Date: 06/09/2008

Time spent on an electronic monitoring program was not physical confinement for purposes of predispositional credit in juvenile case. The minor was committed to the DJJ, following his admission to several felony offenses. On appeal, he contended that the juvenile court erred by failing to award him predispositional credit for 28 days he spent in an electronic monitoring program (EMP). The appellate court rejected the argument, finding that because the minor's electronic monitoring was not physical confinement, it did not entitle him to credit against his subsequent confinement. A minor is entitled to credit against his…

View Full Summary
Name: In re Vincent G.
Case #: C055068
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Opinion Date: 04/23/2008

In juvenile delinquency cases, relevant evidence, including hearsay, is admissible at a dispositional hearing to assist the court in determining the action to be taken in the minor's best interests. Minor was found to be within the provisions of Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 in that he possessed marijuana for sale. At the dispositional hearing, the court accepted evidence from the probation officer that another probation officer stationed at minor's school told him that he had observed minor wearing gang colors and gang symbols. Minor objected on hearsay grounds but the court overruled the objection, finding…

View Full Summary
Name: In re Antonio P.
Case #: F051743
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 5 DCA
Opinion Date: 08/08/2007
Subsequent History: 10/24/07: Revw. Granted S156335

Regardless of whether Cunningham applies to juvenile cases, the calculation of the minor's maximum period of confinement comprised in part on the upper term for the felony adjudication was proper because it was based on recidivism, a constitutionally permissible factor in Cunningham.

The juvenile court committed the minor to the Department of Juvenile Justice and set the maximum period of confinement at four years and four months, consisting of, inter alia, the upper term for the felony offense. In exercising its discretion, the juvenile court relied on the many unsuccessful attempts to rehabilitate the minor. The minor argued…

View Full Summary
Name: In re Christian G.
Case #: B193666
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 6
Opinion Date: 07/24/2007

Cunningham v. California is inapplicable to juvenile cases.

The minor appealed from a judgment declaring him a ward of the court and sentencing him to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ formerly known as CYA) for the maximum term of 23 years and 8 months. The minor contended on appeal that the juvenile court erroneously determined that his theoretical maximum term by utilizing the upper terms for both the felony offense and an enhancement based on facts neither admitted by him nor found true by a jury. The appellate court rejected the argument…

View Full Summary
Name: In re Dina V.
Case #: A115702
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 4
Opinion Date: 05/25/2007

Restitution for the cost of the repair of a stolen vehicle was proper even where it exceeded the replacement value. The minor admitted an allegation charging her with vehicle theft, and was placed on probation, with $4,419.72 restitution ordered, the cost of repairing the vehicle. On appeal, the minor argued that the court abused its discretion by ordering an amount of restitution which exceeded the replacment value of the damaged car. The appellate court disagreed and affirmed the order. Welfare and Institutions Code section 730.6 allows for restitution for either the replacement cost of the property or…

View Full Summary
Name: In re Joseph M.
Case #: B190202
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 5
Opinion Date: 05/10/2007

The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion when it found that it had no discretion to sentence the minor to a term lower than the minimum term an adult would receive for the same offense. The juvenile court sustained a petition charging the minor with carjacking, and using a firearm in the commission of the offense, and set the minor's maximum confinement time at 13 years. On appeal, the minor contended that the juvenile court improperly concluded that it had no discretion to set his maximum confinement time any lower than the minimum sentence which might be…

View Full Summary
Name: In re Calvin S.
Case #: C051191
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Opinion Date: 05/01/2007

The Fourth Amendment does not preclude the collection of DNA samples from a juvenile adjudicated as a 602 for committing a felony. A petition was sustained which alleged the minor had committed a felony car theft. The minor was required to provide DNA samples for submission to the state's DNA Databank, under Penal Code section 296. On appeal, he contended that section 296, as it related to juveniles, violated the Fourth Amendment. The appellate court rejected the argument and affirmed. The authorities are consistent in holding that extracting DNA samples from an adult felon is not an unreasonable search…

View Full Summary