People v. Gary O.

California Court of Appeal Aug 18, 1978 No. Docket Nos. 3707, 3682Published

Before: Franson

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the revocation of probation at a dispositional hearing is a direct consequence of a juvenile's admission, and the juvenile must be apprised of this possibility before entering the admission. Consequently, the trial court abused its discretion by denying the appellant's motion to withdraw his admission when he was not properly advised of the potential for consecutive commitments.

Issues

Whether the juvenile court abused its discretion in denying the appellant's motion to withdraw his admission of the petty theft charge.
Whether the revocation of probation at a dispositional hearing constitutes a direct consequence of an admission requiring prior advisement.

Disposition. reversed and remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The juvenile court abused its discretion in denying appellant’s motion to withdraw his admission of the petty theft charge on the ground that he did not fully understand the consequences of his plea.”

“We hold, therefore, that the revocation of probation at a dispositional hearing is a direct consequence of an admission, and a juvenile must be apprised of the possibility of such revocation before entering his admission.”

[40]

Opinion

FRANSON, J.

Statement of the Case and Facts

Petitioner’s appeal and habeas corpus petition have been consolidated for hearing. Since we reverse the judgment, the habeas corpus petition is rendered moot.

The pertinent facts are as follows: On September 9, 1977, a petition was filed in the Kern County Juvenile Court alleging that appellant, aged 17, came within Welfare and Institutions Code section 602. It was alleged in count I that appellant had violated Health and Safety Code section 11359 (possession of marijuana for sale), in count II that he violated Penal Code section 484 (petty theft of an electric drill valued at $30), and in count III that he violated Health and Safety Code section 11357, subdivision (c) (unlawful possession of more than one ounce of marijuana). At a detention hearing on September 13 appellant denied each count.

At a jurisdictional hearing on September 30 appellant indicated that he would admit the petty theft charge. The referee informed him that the district attorney had agreed to drop the other two counts if he admitted the petty theft. The referee also ascertained that appellant understood the nature of the charge and the constitutional rights he was relinquishing by admitting it. In addition, the court advised him that his admission of the theft charge could result in either probation or commitment to a local facility or the California Youth Authority (CYA). The court thereupon read him the charge, stating that

the maximum confinement time for it was six months.

The appellant admitted the petty theft. Counts I and III were then dismissed on motion by the district attorney. The referee found that appellant was a person within Welfare and Institutions Code section 602. Later in the hearing, the referee advised appellant that there was a possibility that any existing probation orders might be revoked at the dispositional hearing.

At the dispositional hearing the juvenile court judge stated at the outset that he had reviewed the probation report but had decided to commit appellant to the Youth Authority rather than Camp Erwin Owen, as recommended in the report. When the judge stated that the commitment would be based upon appellant’s “entire record” and would exceed six months, appellant’s counsel moved to withdraw the admission of the

People v. Gary O.

AI Brief

FRANSON, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief