Skip to content
Name: In re Sheena K.
Case #: S123980
Court: CA Supreme Court
District CalSup
Opinion Date: 03/15/2007

A constitutional challenge to a probation condition based on its overbreadth and vagueness can be raised for the first time on appeal. Appellant was adjudicated a ward of the juvenile court and placed on probation subject to conditions, including that she "not associate with anyone disapproved of by probation." Although she did not object to the condition at disposition, on appeal, she contended that it restricted her association and was vague and overbroad. The appellate court declined to apply the doctrine of forfeiture on appeal and concluded that the probation condition was overbroad as it stood. …

View Full Summary
Name: In re Daniel R.
Case #: D047906
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 10/24/2006

The minor appealed from a dispositional order which imposed a probation condition absolutely prohibiting travel to Mexico. The minor contended that the condition was unconstitutionally overbroad and had to be modified to allow travel to Mexico with the permission of the probation officer, while accompanied by his parents. The appellate court agreed and modified the condition. Since the condition does not forbid conduct which was criminal, it must either be reasonably related to the crime or for the purpose of deterring future criminality. Here, the condition was not related to the minor's offenses, nor did the…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Demirdjian
Case #: B188113
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 4
Opinion Date: 10/24/2006

Appellant was 15 years old when he committed two murders with special circumstances. He was first sentenced to two terms of life without the possibility of parole (LWOPP). His convictions were affirmed. After the remittitur issued in that case, the Attorney General wrote the trial court, advising that the sentence was unauthorized, because a term of LWOPP cannot be imposed where a minor was under 16 when the crime was committed. The trial court vacated the original sentence and resentenced appellant to two consecutive life terms. In this appeal, appellant argued that the sentence violated…

View Full Summary
Name: In re Derrick B.
Case #: S124205
Court: CA Supreme Court
District CalSup
Opinion Date: 08/10/2006

A juvenile may not be ordered to register as a sex offender under Penal Code section 290 if his offenses are not listed in subdivision (d)(3) of that section. The minor was originally alleged to have committed a violation of section 288, subdivision (a), but ultimately admitted committing sexual battery (Pen. Code, sec. 243.4). After he was declared a ward of the court and failed in several placements, he was sent to the California Youth Authority and ordered to register as a sex offender under Penal Code section 290. The California Suprme Court reversed the appellate…

View Full Summary
Name: In re Geneva C.
Case #: B187281
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 4
Opinion Date: 07/21/2006

Section 731, subdivision (b) only applies to commitments to CYA. The minor appealed from an order committing her to a camp program for the maximum term of confinement. She contended that the juvenile court failed to exercise its discretion to set the term based on the facts of the case, and that Welfare and Institutions Code section 731, subdivision (b) gives the juvenile court discretion to impose less than the maximum term. The appellate court rejected the argument and affirmed. Section 731(b) exclusive reference to CYA demonstrates that the Legislature intended it to apply only to CYA…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Lemanuel C.
Case #: A109322
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 05/12/2006
Subsequent History: Rev. granted 8/23/06: S144515

Appellant's commitment to CYA was extended under Welfare and Institutions Code section 1800. On appeal, appellant contended that the statute was unconstitutional in that it denied him due process of law. The appellate court disagreed and affirmed. Section 1800 does not violate due process under the cases defining the findings necessary for constitutionally valid civil commitments. In In re Howard N., the court concluded that in a section 1800 proceeding, there must be a finding of serious difficulty in controlling dangerous behavior. This case was tried before Howard N., and the section 1800 petition failed to…

View Full Summary
Name: In re Ali A.
Case #: C049808
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Opinion Date: 05/16/2006

The minor was convicted of attempted robbery, and was declared a ward of the court. The juvenile court committed him to the custody of his parents under probation supervision. On appeal, the minor contended that the juvenile court failed to exercise its discretion when it set the maximum term of physical confinement at three years. The appellate court rejected his argument because Welfare and Institutions Code section 731(b) does not apply where the minor is allowed to remain in his parents' custody. The maximum term of confinement included in the dispositional order here is of no…

View Full Summary
Name: In re Lino B.
Case #: C050274
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Opinion Date: 04/28/2006
Subsequent History: 7/26/06 Rev. gr. S144112; 11/29/06 Rev. dismissed

The minor was charged with two felony counts of second degree burglary. In a negotiated disposition agreement, the minor admitted one count of burglary as a misdemeanor, and the other count was dismissed with a Harvey waiver. He was placed on probation for a stipulated term of nine months, with conditions, and ordered to pay restitution and a restitution fine. On appeal, he argued that the nine-month period of probation had to be reduced to the statutory maximum of six months. The appellate court affirmed. The trial court did not lack fundamental jurisdiction to hear the case, and the minor…

View Full Summary
Name: In re Anthony C.
Case #: C048529
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Opinion Date: 04/28/2006

The minor appealed from the judgment of extended commitment to CYA pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 1800 on the grounds that the evidence at trial was insufficient to prove he has serious difficulty controlling his dangerous behavior. The appellate court agreed and reversed. The evidence in this case was even weaker than that presented in In re Howard N. The offense, which involved sexual acts with minor girls, were not crimes of compulsion, but of opportunity. The expert testimony was that the minor presented "some risk, moderate at least" to the community if released. The minor's confinement…

View Full Summary
Name: In re Antoine D.
Case #: A110521
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 3
Opinion Date: 03/28/2006

The minor moved to modify his commitment to the California Youth Authority under Welfare and Institutions Code sections 778 and 779. The juvenile court denied the motion based on concern that it would lose jurisdiction over appellant were it to modify his CYA commitment. On appeal, the minor claimed that the juvenile court’s ruling was an abuse of discretion because the court would not have lost jurisdiction by granting the motion, and in any event, loss of jurisdiction was an improper basis for denying the motion. The appellate court agreed and reversed, noting that juvenile delinquency laws…

View Full Summary