Skip to content
Name: In re T.P.
Case #: C048686
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Opinion Date: 02/27/2006

Because a juvenile adjudication is not a "conviction," juveniles are not subject to the $50 laboratory fee mandated by Health and Safety Code section 11372.5. Upon the People’s concession, the court reversed the order requiring the minor to pay the…

View Full Summary
Name: In re David S.
Case #: A109703
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 5
Opinion Date: 10/31/2005

The minor admitted two misdemeanors, including battery on a school employee. He was ordered to comply with conditions of juvenile probation, including a condition that he not possess any weapons, and that the DOJ be notified of this condition. The minor objected to the condition. At a hearing to modify the condition, the prosecutor took the position that the weapon prohibition was mandated by section 12021, subdivision (e), which prohibits the possession of weapons by a minor convicted of enumerated offenses, including battery, (although battery on a school employee was not specifically included). The appellate court…

View Full Summary
Name: In re Nancy C.
Case #: C048636
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Opinion Date: 10/17/2005

The minor was convicted of auto theft in violation of Vehicle Code section 10851, a "wobbler" offense. The court did not declare the offense to be either a felony or misdemeanor. Over the minor's objection, the court also ordered her to provide samples for the DNA data bank in accordance with Penal Code section 296. On appeal, the minor argued that the DNA order should be stayed pending the court's determination of the felony/misdemeanor status of her offense, because section 296 does not apply to misdemeanors. The Court of Appeal agreed and ordered that since remand…

View Full Summary
Name: In re Alex N.
Case #: H027720
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 6 DCA
Opinion Date: 08/22/2005

Appellant was committed to the California Youth Authority (CYA) for a burglary, and the juvenile court aggregated his previously sustained petitions to identify a maximum confinement time of 13 years and 10 months. Appellant asked the court to dismiss the prior sex offenses he admitted in 2001 or make the CYA commitment solely on the burglary count in order to avoid him being required to register as a sex offender. The court refused to do so, and said that it did not have the discretion to not include the sex offenses in the aggregated sentence. On appeal,…

View Full Summary
Name: In re Brent F.
Case #: C043156
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Opinion Date: 06/30/2005

A court cannot rely on Welfare and Institutions Code section 778 to modify a minor’s placement to CYA. The minor here was placed in various group homes and as well as in a sexual offender treatment program; each of these placements failed. The probation department filed a petition under section 778, seeking to modify the placement and commit the minor to the Youth Authority because all other options had been exhausted. The minor unsuccessfully objected to this procedure, and on appeal the appellate court reversed, holding that section 777 is the exclusive statutory mechanism for a juvenile…

View Full Summary
Name: In re Jacob J.
Case #: C046367
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Opinion Date: 06/17/2005

Under recent amendments to Welfare and Institutions Code section 731, a juvenile court must use its discretion to set a maximum term of physical confinement based on the facts and circumstances of the case. The appellate court refused to presume from a silent record that the court had exercised its discretion, holding that the record must affirmatively disclose that the court has considered the facts and circumstances in choosing the term of…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Thomas
Case #: S118052
Court: CA Supreme Court
District CalSup
Opinion Date: 04/18/2005

When a minor is charged with certain serious criminal offenses, the prosecutor can file the charges against the minor directly in the criminal division of the superior court (criminal court) and prosecute the minor as an adult. (See Welf. & Inst. Code, secs. 602, subd. (b), 707, subd. (d).) If the minor is convicted, the criminal court has discretion under section 1170.19, subd. (a)(4), to "order a juvenile disposition under the juvenile court law, in lieu of a sentence under [the Penal] code" [often referred to as "reverse remand"] -- but only if the prosecutor consents to that…

View Full Summary
Name: In re Michael H.
Case #: F045191
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 5 DCA
Opinion Date: 04/28/2005

The minor was committed to CYA for a felony violation of Penal Code section 288. Just prior to the expiration of his commitment, the juvenile court ordered his commitment extended for two years pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 1800 et seq. On appeal, Michael argued the constitutionality of the statute, and also the insufficiency of evidence to support the necessary findings to extend the commitment. The appellate court, citing the recent California Supreme Court opinion in In re Howard N. (2005) 35 Cal.4th 117, upheld the constitutionality of the statute by construing it to require…

View Full Summary
Name: In re Sean W.
Case #: A107500
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 03/28/2005

Following amendments to Welfare and Institutions Code section 731, subdivision (b), a juvenile court must exercise its discretion in selecting the maximum confinement time in delinquency proceedings. The court first held that the issue was not waived under People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, because the minor was not complaining on appeal that discretion was exercised in a flawed manner, but rather that the court was not aware of its discretion in the first place. The court then went on to exam the legislative history of the new amendment, along with the overall statutory scheme, and rejected…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Thomas
Case #: S118052
Court: CA Supreme Court
District CalSup
Opinion Date: 04/18/2005
Subsequent History: Rhrg. den. 6/8/05

Appellant was 15 years old when he committed an armed robbery. He was tried as an adult pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 707, subdivision (d)(2). Appellant entered into a negotiated plea agreement, under the terms of which he could not be sentenced to more than 13 years in prison. Appellant asked for a disposition under juvenile court law, and the prosecutor objected. Under Penal Code section 1170.19, the objection barred the trial court from considering a juvenile disposition. Appellant contended that the requirement for prosecutorial consent violated the separation of powers provision of…

View Full Summary