Skip to content
Name: In re Jeffrey T.
Case #: A111284
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 3
Opinion Date: 06/23/2006

The trial court’s conclusion that it could not order juvenile’s records sealed was proper where the offense was committed past the age of 14. Appellant moved to seal his juvenile record for battery under Welfare and Institutions Code section 781. The juvenile court denied his motion on the grounds that section 781 precludes sealing a person's juvenile records in a case where the person was found to have committed a 707(b) offense after reaching the age of 14. Although the battery offense was not a 707(b) offense, appellant committed in addition to the battery, assault by force likely…

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
Name: In re Howard N.
Case #: S123722
Court: CA Supreme Court
District CalSup
Opinion Date: 02/24/2005

The extended detention scheme outlined in Welfare and Institutions Code section 1800 et seq, which provides for the civil commitment of a person who would otherwise be discharged from the Youth Authority, violates due process because it does not expressly require a finding that the person’s mental deficiency, disorder, or abnormality causes serious difficulty in controlling behavior. The California Supreme Court concluded that, in order to preserve the constitutionality of the commitment scheme, such a requirement should be read into the relevant statutes. Because the jury in this case was not instructed in regard to this requirement, and…

View Full Summary
Name: John L. v. Superior Court
Case #: S098158
Court: CA Supreme Court
District CalSup
Opinion Date: 06/17/2004

Where a minor committed under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 prior to the adoption of Proposition 21 is later charged with a probation violation, the court may apply the reduced burden of proof under Proposition 21 to those probation violation proceedings without offending the ex post facto clause. Proposition 21 allows the court to apply a preponderance of the evidence standard to juvenile probation violations under Welfare and Institutions Code section 777, subdivision (a)(2). The new standard of proof does not result in an increased term under the original 602 proceedings, nor does it implicate the degree…

View Full Summary
Name: In re Eddie M.
Case #: S109902
Court: CA Supreme Court
District CalSup
Opinion Date: 08/07/2003

Under Proposition 21, probation violations "not amounting to crimes" may be charged and proved by a preponderance of the evidence. The Supreme Court interprets the statute to simply have ended prosecutorial discretion to use Welfare and Institutions Code section 777, subdivion (a)(2) to seek new criminal adjudications. However, probation violations which may also include criminal conduct may be charged, as long as the conduct is charged solely as a probation violation and the physical confinement time does not exceed the maximum term of adult confinement tied to the original offense. Moreover, use of the preponderance of…

View Full Summary
Name: In re Manuel G.
Case #: D038525
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 12/23/2002
Subsequent History: Rev. denied 2/25/03.

Amendments to Welfare and Institutions Code section 781 by Proposition 21 precluded the sealing of the minor’s juvenile record relating to his 1995 offense in violation of Penal Code section 288, subdivision (b) (forcible lewd act on a child under 14). However, the People had no statutory right to appeal the order of the juvenile court granting the minor’s petition to seal the record, on the theory that to prevent sealing would violate equal protection and ex post facto guarantees. Nevertheless, the court treated the People’s purported appeal as a mandate petition, which it granted, finding no constitutional…

View Full Summary
Name: In re Francisco S.
Case #: B144047
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 12/21/2000
Subsequent History: None

The juvenile court erred here in ordering the minor confined as punishment for contempt, where the punishment exceeded that which could have been imposed for the offense for which the minor was on probation. The juvenile court had placed the minor on probation and had imposed the maximum penalty for possessing less than an ounce of marijuana on school grounds: a fine of $250. The prosecution then filed a contempt petition based on subsequent violations of the probation conditions. The juvenile court found the allegations true, and imposed 60 days in juvenile hall, with 30 days stayed.…

View Full Summary
Name: In re Antwon R.
Case #: E028752
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 02/27/2001
Subsequent History: None

Penal Code section 1237.1, which precludes a criminal defendant from raising an error in the calculation of presentence custody credits, at least as a sole issue on appeal, if she or he has not previously raised the error in the trial court, does not apply to juvenile appeals. Section 1237.1, which specifically refers to a final judgment of conviction, does not apply to juvenile appeals because juvenile proceedings are not criminal prosecutions. Juvenile appeals are separately authorized by Welfare and Institutions Code section 800. Therefore, since the juvenile court erred when it failed to calculate the minor's…

View Full Summary