In Re Ernest R.

California Court of Appeal Jul 7, 1998 No. C026702Published

Before: Sims

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The juvenile court is authorized under Welfare and Institutions Code section 726 to aggregate previously sustained petitions when making a new dispositional order following a supplemental petition filed under section 777.

Issues

Whether a section 777 supplemental petition permits the aggregation of previously sustained petitions for confinement time.
Whether the failure to provide written notice of intent to aggregate prior to a section 777 disposition constitutes reversible error.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“We conclude the juvenile court's aggregation order was authorized by section 726.”

“A minor has a due process right to notice that his maximum term of confinement could be aggregated on the basis of his prior offenses.”

“The failure to give the minor written notice of aggregation was thus harmless error.”

76 Cal.Rptr.2d 453 (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 453 In re ERNEST R., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,

ERNEST R., Defendant and Appellant.

No. C026702. Court of Appeal, Third District.

July 7, 1998. George R. Robertson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, Stockton, for Defendant and Appellant.

Daniel E. Lungren, Attorney General, George Williamson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Assistant Attorney General, J. Robert Jibson and Anthony L. Dicce, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

SIMS, Associate Justice.

This appeal arises from delinquency proceedings in juvenile court.

The minor, Ernest R., was a ward of the court due to previously sustained petitions for second degree misdemeanor burglary (Pen.Code, §§ 459, 460), misdemeanor theft (Pen.Code, § 484), possession of a knife on school grounds (Pen.Code, § 626.10), making terrorist threats (Pen.Code, § 422), and battery with serious bodily injury (Pen.Code, § 243, subd. (d)).

On March 18, 1997, a supplemental petition (Welf. & InstCode, § 777, hereafter all references [454] to undesignated sections are to the Welfare an Institutions Code) was filed against the minor. The petition set forth the formerly sustained petitions and alleged that his prior disposition had not been effective in his rehabilitation because the minor had damaged property and committed battery on a staff member at his latest placement. Following a contested hearing the petition was sustained.

The probation officer's report recommended a Youth Authority commitment with aggregation of the previously sustained petitions for the maximum period of confinement. At the disposition hearing the minor argued that a petition filed pursuant to section 777 did not permit aggregation of previously sustained petitions. The matter was continued for the minor to file points and authorities on the issue.

At the continued hearing the court, relying on In re Michael B. (1980) 28 Cal.3d 548, 169 Cal.Rptr. 723, 620 P.2d 173, rejected the minor's argument. The court committed him to the Youth Authority and aggregated his previously sustained section 602 petitions for a maximum confinement time of five years and six months.

In Re Ernest R.

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

III

NOTES

AI Brief