Skip to content
Name: In re Carlos E.
Case #: F045287
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 5 DCA
Opinion Date: 04/01/2005

Welfare and Institutions Code section 731, amended by Senate Bill No. 459 (2003-2004 Reg. Sess.), operative January 1, 2004, requires the juvenile court to exercise its discretion to determine the maximum term of a minor's confinement at CYA based on the facts and circumstances of the minor's case and not simply to calculate the maximum term that could be imposed on an adult. The opinion reviews developments in juvenile law in tandem with the Determinate Sentencing Law since 1976, concluding that Welfare and Institutions Code section 726, which sets the maximum confinement time to that which could be imposed…

View Full Summary
Name: In re I. M.
Case #: A105503
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 01/20/2005
Subsequent History: Revw den. 5/11/05

A court may order a minor who was an accessory after the fact to murder to pay restitution to a victim’s family for funeral expenses. The juvenile court found true allegations that the minor had acted as an accessory to murder and that he had committed that offense for the benefit of a criminal street gang, and ordered him to pay funeral expenses to the victim’s family. After rejecting the minor’s contentions that his conviction violated the corpus delecti rule and that both the substantive offense and the enhancement were not supported by sufficient evidence, the appellate court…

View Full Summary
Name: In re Ernesto H.
Case #: H026961
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 6 DCA
Opinion Date: 12/01/2004
Subsequent History: 3/2/05: rev. den.

A juvenile who verbally threatened a teacher was not entitled to First Amendment protection. The minor here responded to a teacher’s instructions by clenching his fists, stepping towards the teacher, and saying, "Yell at me again and see what happens." A juvenile court found true an allegation that the minor had violated Penal Code section 71, which prohibits a person from attempting to cause a public employee from doing any act in the performance of his duties by means of a threat to inflict unlawful injury. On appeal, the minor argued that his statement had not constituted…

View Full Summary
Name: In re Edy D.
Case #: B166775
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 4
Opinion Date: 07/26/2004

Due process prohibits a juvenile court from considering a minor’s choice to adjudicate the allegations against him in determining the proper disposition. At the time that the minor rejected the offered plea agreement, the court informed counsel that probation under Welfare and Institutions Code section 725 was "off the table" due to the minor’s decision to proceed to a court trial. Counsel later moved to disqualify the judge under Code of Civil Procedure section 170.1, but the court rejected the motion as untimely. At the disposition, the court rejected the probation report’s recommendation of a disposition under…

View Full Summary
Name: Egar v. Superior Court
Case #: B174364
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 6
Opinion Date: 07/27/2004

The court security fee imposed for every criminal conviction does not apply to juvenile wardship cases. Penal Code section 1465.8 by its own terms does not apply to juvenile cases, because a juvenile adjudication is not a…

View Full Summary
Name: In re Brian N.
Case #: F044322
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 5 DCA
Opinion Date: 07/12/2004
Subsequent History: 7/12/04: rhg. den.; 9/29/04: revw. den.

A juvenile who started a fire by playing with fireworks was properly ordered to pay restitution to the fire department that battled the fire. After the minor was judged a ward of the court and placed on probation, the juvenile court ordered him to pay for the city fire department’s costs of fighting the fire. On appeal, he argued that this order was unauthorized because the firefighters were not a direct victim of the offense. The Court of Appeal disagreed, drawing an analogy to People v. Crow (1993) 6 Cal.4th 952, in which the California Supreme Court…

View Full Summary
Name: In re Byron B.
Case #: E034871
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 06/24/2004

A juvenile court may order, as a condition of probation, that a juvenile not associate with anyone disapproved of by his probation officer. Declining to reach the issue of whether the minor waived the issue by failing to object, the appellate court held that while the juvenile court could not forbid association with any person "not approved," it could forbid association with any person "disapproved," so long as it also required that the minor know of the…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Garcia
Case #: F042317
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 5 DCA
Opinion Date: 05/20/2004
Subsequent History: None

A juvenile charged under Proposition 21 may be sentenced as an adult without consideration of a social study. The seventeen-year-old minor in this case was sentenced to an aggregate term of 45 years to life for various assault and weapons charges. The court here considered only the narrow question of whether Penal Code section 1170.19, subdivision (a)(4), required the sentencing court to consider a social study by the probation officer prior to imposing an adult sentence on a Proposition 21 discretionary direct filing. Relying on the plain language of the statute, the Court of Appeal found that…

View Full Summary
Name: In re Veronique P.
Case #: F043917
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 5 DCA
Opinion Date: 06/04/2004

The 14-year-old minor admitted that she committed a violation of Penal Code section 245, subdivision (a)(1), assault with a deadly weapon. The court designated her offense as falling within section Welfare and Institutions Code section 707, subdivision (b). On appeal, the minor argued that the trial court erred in making this designation because she was only 14 years old when she committed the offense. The appellate court disagreed and affirmed. The age limitation of section 707, subdivision (b), does not preclude a court from utilizing the list of crimes contained in that section for other authorized…

View Full Summary
Name: In re Ronny P.
Case #: B166593
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 5
Opinion Date: 04/22/2004
Subsequent History: Rev. den. 7/14/04

Appellant was found to be a ward of the court under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, for violating Penal Code sections 245 (a) and 415. He was committed to a camp community placement program for a minimum of 120 days, and the maximum confinement time was specified as four years and nine months. On appeal, appellant contended the juvenile court exceeded its statutory authority when it imposed a minimum period of confinement in the camp. The appellate court rejected the argument, holding that although a minimum period of confinement in camp is not expressly authorized by statute,…

View Full Summary