Skip to content
Name: In re M.B. (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 435
Case #: A166408
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 3
Opinion Date: 01/31/2024

The maximum term of confinement of 22-years-to-life set by the juvenile court was unauthorized. The juvenile court committed the minor to a secured youth treatment facility (SYTF) under Welfare and Institutions Code section 875, after he admitted attempted murder and various enhancement allegations. The court stated a baseline term of confinement of four years, pursuant to section 875(b), and set a maximum term of confinement of 22-years-to-life under subdivision (c) of that section. The court also ordered that the minor’s pre-commitment credits be applied against the maximum term of confinement. The minor appealed, arguing that the juvenile court lacked jurisdiction…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Dokins
Case #: B250572
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 8
Opinion Date: 10/30/2015
Subsequent History: Review granted 2/17/2016: S231052

Trial court's failure to consider the factors discussed in Miller v. Alabama (2012) 132 S.Ct. 2455, before sentencing a juvenile defendant who committed homicide to de facto LWOP mandates reversal and remand for resentencing. Dokins was 15 years old when he shot an adult and a child, killing the baby. Dokins was tried as an adult and convicted of first degree murder, attempted murder, gun use enhancements, and other offenses. He was sentenced to 90 years to life in prison. On appeal, he made an Eighth Amendment challenge to his sentence. Held: Reversed in part and remanded. In Miller, the…

View Full Summary
Name: Alejandro N. v. Superior Court
Case #: D067445
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 07/23/2015

Minor was entitled to have his juvenile adjudication redesignated as a misdemeanor, in addition to having his maximum term of confinement reduced. Alejandro admitted committing felony commercial burglary. The juvenile court adjudged him a ward and ordered him confined for a maximum period of three years. After Proposition 47 passed, Alejandro filed a petition arguing his commercial burglary offense was now a misdemeanor shoplifting offense with a maximum confinement of six months, which he had already served. Alejandro requested that he be released from custody and that his offense be reclassified as a misdemeanor. The superior court ruled that Alejandro's…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Scott
Case #: E060028
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 03/20/2015
Subsequent History: Review granted 7/8/2015: S226155

Enactment of Penal Code section 3051 renders juvenile offender's 120-years-to-life sentence for nonhomicide offense constitutional because it provides a meaningful opportunity for release. Scott was convicted of three counts of attempted murder and other offenses with firearm and gang enhancements based on evidence that he participated in a gang-related, drive-by shooting that resulted in injuries but no deaths. Although he was a juvenile at the time of the crimes, he was tried as an adult and sentenced to 120-years-to-life. In a habeas petition, Scott sought resentencing on the basis that his sentence was a defacto LWOP sentence in a nonhomicide…

View Full Summary
Name: In re A.C.
Case #: C073242
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Opinion Date: 03/10/2014

Where a juvenile court's order includes a maximum confinement term for a minor who is not removed from parental custody, the remedy is to strike the term. The juvenile court sustained a Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 petition alleging that the minor committed robbery and other offenses. He was not removed from parental custody but was released on home probation. Nevertheless, the court set a maximum confinement term. On appeal, the minor argued that this was error. Held: Maximum confinement term stricken. In In re Ali A. (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 569, the Third District Court of Appeal held…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Superior Court (Flores)
Case #: D064350
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 02/21/2014
Subsequent History: Review granted 5/21/2014: S217404

Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (d)(2), regarding a juvenile offender's ability to petition for recall of his sentence, does not apply to a juvenile offender serving a long sentence which is not technically LWOP. Flores was 17 years old when he and an adult committed three first degree murder offenses that resulted in a sentence of 76 years to life. After serving 22 years in prison, Flores petitioned the court to recall his sentence under section 1170, subdivision (d)(2). The prosecution opposed the petition, contending that section 1170, subdivision (d)(2) did not apply because Flores was not sentenced to LWOP.…

View Full Summary
Name: In re P.A.
Case #: E053608
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 11/15/2012

The juvenile court correctly declined to make any statement regarding the minor's maximum term of confinement when it continued the minor in his parents' custody at the disposition hearing; the court's statements at the jurisdiction hearing regarding the maximum term of confinement do not need to be stricken. At a contested jurisdiction hearing, the juvenile court found true allegations that the minor violated Penal Code sections 69 and 148, subdivision (a)(1) and stated the maximum period of confinement. At the disposition hearing, the court did not remove the minor from his parents' custody and did not make any statement regarding…

View Full Summary
Name: Jackson v. Hobbs
Case #: Oct-47
Court: US Supreme Court
District USSup
Opinion Date: 06/25/2012
Subsequent History: 132 S.Ct. 2455; 183 L.Ed.2d 407

The Eighth Amendment prohibits a mandatory life without parole sentencing scheme for juvenile homicide offenders. In both Jackson v. Hobbs (10-9647) and Miller v. Alabama (10-9646), the 14-year-old juveniles were tried as adults, convicted of murder and, under mandatory sentencing schemes, sentenced to LWOP. Reversed and remanded. For sentencing purposes, children are constitutionally different from adults and the distinct attributes of the juvenile offender lessen the justification for imposing the harshest of penalties even for terrible crimes. But the mandatory LWOP scheme fails to acknowledge these factors by not considering the unique nature of the juvenile in determining…

View Full Summary
Name: In re J.L.
Case #: B231854
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 8
Opinion Date: 06/12/2012
Subsequent History: Mod. opn. 7/12/12

There was sufficient evidence that appellant used a sidewalk as a deadly weapon in violation of Penal Code section 245, assault with a deadly weapon. Appellant punched the victim in the eye, who fell to the sidewalk. While the victim was down, appellant stomped on the victim's head such that the sidewalk effectively became one side of a vice with the minor's foot on the other side. The court rejected appellant's argument that he had not "used" the sidewalk. An assailant can intentionally take advantage of an object's intrinsic qualities in a way likely to cause a…

View Full Summary