People v. Glen J.

California Court of Appeal Oct 23, 1979 No. Civ. 18298Published

Before: Puglia

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. A modification of a juvenile disposition order that changes the duration or location of a commitment within the same level of custody does not require a supplemental petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 777 or California Rule of Court 1391. Such modifications are properly handled via an application for modification under section 778 when they do not result in a more restrictive level of physical custody.

Issues

Whether a supplemental petition is required to modify a juvenile disposition order when the modification changes the duration and location of a commitment but remains within the same level of custody.
Whether the modification of a dispositional order constitutes a more restrictive level of physical custody under rule 1391.
Whether the modification proceedings violated the minor's rights regarding notice, confrontation of witnesses, double jeopardy, or multiple punishment.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“If the drafters had intended an increase in duration of custody at the same type of facility to constitute a modification imposing a more restrictive level of custody within the rule, it would have been simple enough to say so.”

“Modification of a dispositional order in the exercise of the court’s continuing jurisdiction over a ward does not constitute double jeopardy.”

[984]

Opinion

PUGLIA, P. J.

On July 27, 1978, Glen J., age 15, was found by the juvenile court to be a person within section 602 of the Welfare and Institutions Code following his admissions to three counts of burglary, one count of attempted burglary, and one count of vandalism, all as alleged in the amended petition. (All succeeding statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.) On August 10, 1978, Glen was adjudged a ward of the court and committed to the Bar-O-Boys Ranch for 90 days. He was received at the ranch on August 21, 1978.

On October 17, 1978, the probation officer applied to the court for modification of the disposition order to provide for an indefinite commitment to Bar-O-Boys Ranch. The application alleged a “change in circumstances” since the original order, reciting that Glen had “failed” the 90-day commitment but “could be helped” in the indefinite program. Hearing on the application was set for October 26, 1978, and the minor and his parents were so notified. After several continuances during which time Glen was detained in juvenile hall, the application came on for hearing on December 14, 1978.

In the interim, the probation officer had filed a report including a review of Glen’s conduct and adjustment under the original order and commitment and recommended modification of the order to provide for commitment of the minor to Pouts Springs Boys Ranch for an indefinite period.

Bar-0 and Pouts Springs Boys Ranches are both county institutions.

On appeal the minor asserts that a supplemental petition is required to confer jurisdiction on the juvenile court to order the instant modification.

Section 777 provides in pertinent part: “An order changing or modifying a previous order by removing a minor from physical custody of a parent, guardian, relative or friend and directing placement in a foster home, or commitment to a private institution or commitment to a county institution, or an order changing or modifying a previous order by directing commitment to the Youth Authority shall be made only after noticed hearing upon a supplemental petition.

People v. Glen J.

AI Brief

PUGLIA, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief