People v. Ruben A.

California Court of Appeal Jul 17, 1981 No. Civ. 24434Published

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that juvenile dispositional orders must be reversed when the court fails to make an express finding that previous probation was rehabilitatively ineffective as required by Welfare and Institutions Code section 777.

Issues

Whether a juvenile court may commit a minor to a more restrictive level of custody without making an express finding that previous probation was rehabilitatively ineffective.
Whether the 'Progress Review' procedure used by the court complied with the notice and procedural requirements of section 777.

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Whenever a section 777 supplemental petition is brought, at the later hearing, “the court must make an express finding the previous order in fact has been rehabilitatively ineffective.””

“The court here failed to make such a finding either at the hearing on the section 777 petition or at the “Progress Review” hearing.”

“The dispositional orders must therefore be reversed.”

[673]

Opinion

THE COURT.

Ruben A., a minor, appeals orders made by the juvenile court after a series of petitions and hearings which are summarized: On August 22, 1979, Ruben was charged by petition with receiving stolen property (Pen. Code, § 496). A true finding was made and Ruben was placed on probation, although the record does not state what the conditions of probation were.

On October 3, 1980, a supplemental petition was filed under Welfare and Institutions Code section 777*

alleging Ruben violated the terms of his probation by failing to report to his probation officer. At a hearing conducted on the supplemental petition, Ruben admitted the allegation and the court made a true finding as to it. The court, however, failed to find Ruben’s probation up to that point had not been effective in his rehabilitation or protection. The court again granted Ruben probation, subject to a number of conditions, among them, requiring Ruben to report to his probation officer, to obey the rules imposed by his probation officer, and to attend school regularly. The court also committed Ruben to the Youth Guidance Center for a term of 90 days, but stayed the commitment until January 14, 1981, where a “Progress Review” hearing was scheduled to take place. The court warned Ruben if he violated any of the conditions of his probation, “I’m going to pick you up and put you over in [the Youth Guidance Center] for 90 days....”

[674]

At the January 14, 1981, “Progress Review” hearing, the People handed the court a “Progress Report” dated that same day, which alleged Ruben had been habitually truant from school, had shown up at a meeting with his probation officer drunk, had failed to obey his probation officer and had violated his curfew. The report recommended the stayed commitment to the Youth Guidance Center be imposed and Ruben be held in custody at juvenile hall until the center was ready to admit him. There is nothing in the record to indicate Ruben had any advance notice of the contents of this report nor of the effort to have him detained in juvenile hall. While he may have

People v. Ruben A.

AI Brief

THE COURT.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief