In re I.T. CA4/2

California Court of Appeal Sep 4, 2024 No. E083141Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the juvenile court erred by failing to make an express declaration as to whether the minor's wobbler offenses were misdemeanors or felonies, as required by Welfare and Institutions Code section 702.

Issues

Whether the juvenile court failed to comply with Welfare and Institutions Code section 702 by not declaring whether the minor's wobbler offenses were misdemeanors or felonies.

Disposition. Affirmed in part; reversed in part, and remanded with directions.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Welfare and Institutions Code section 702 provides that when a minor is found to have committed a wobbler offense, ‘the court shall declare the offense to be a misdemeanor or felony.’”

“because the court did not make an express declaration as to whether it deemed the minor’s offenses to be felonies or misdemeanors, and the record as a whole does not demonstrate the juvenile court was aware of and exercised its discretion”

Filed 9/4/24 In re I.T. CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

In re I.T., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

THE PEOPLE, E083141 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super.Ct.No. SWJ2100391) v. OPINION I.T.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Michele A. Mathis, Judge.

Affirmed in part; reversed in part, and remanded with directions.

Debbie Yen, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and

Appellant.

Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General,

Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney General, Robin Urbanski and Brendon Marshall,

Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Defendant and appellant I.T. appeals from the juvenile court’s disposition in which

the court did not designate either of his wobbler offenses as a misdemeanor or a felony,

contrary to Welfare and Institutions Code section 702 and In re F.M. (2023) 14 Cal.5th

701 (F.M.).1 Respondent concedes the error, and we accept the concession as correctly

stating the law. I.T. does not challenge the court’s decision continuing him as a ward of

the court. (§ 602.) Accordingly, we affirm the court’s wardship determination, but

In re I.T. CA4/2

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

DISCUSSION

DISPOSITION

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

RAMIREZ P. J. FIELDS J.

AI Brief