In Re Kirk G.
Before: Kingsley
Opinion
KINGSLEY, J.
Petitioner attacks as invalid an order of the Juvenile Court of Santa Barbara County, imposing on him a 30-day sentence in the county jail as a condition of probation. We annul that order.
1
By proceedings not herein attacked, petitioner was charged with being and found to be a person within the meaning of (former) section 602 of the Welfare and Institutions Code,
2
because of several motor vehicle violations. The offenses involved were committed at a time when petitioner was under the age of 18. By the time he appeared for a dispositional hearing, he had reached the age of 18. It is stipulated that no reporter’s transcript of that hearing is available; therefore, we have no statement by the trial court as to the reasoning underlying the order as made. The probation report, which was before the trial court and is before us in this proceeding, shows a long history of juvenile offenses, some involving conduct similar to that herein involved. Respondent contends that the order was made because the trial court believed that a short term of confinement might impress on the petitioner the wisdom of future observations of the law. For the purpose of this opinion we assume that was the basis of the trial court’s order.
Respondent argues that had petitioner been found unfit for juvenile court proceedings and been remanded to a criminal court, that conrt
[540]
could (since he is now over 18) lawfully.have imposed the county jail sentence as á condition of probation. The answer to that contention is that no such transfer to a criminal court took place.
We are thus faced with the problem: May a juvenile court, acting as such, lawfully impose a jail sentence as a condition of juvenile probation. We conclude that it cannot.
The Juvenile Court Law carefully sets forth this kind of dispositional order that a juvenile court can make. Those dispositions are set forth in (former) sections 727, 730 and 731 of the Welfare and Institutions Code. Commitment to a county jail is nowhere included.
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)