People v. Adam D.

[102]

Opinion

McDONALD, J.

The People filed a petition in the juvenile court seeking to have Adam D. (Adam) declared a ward of the court under Welfare and Institutions Code

1

section 602. Adam pleaded guilty to misdemeanor theft (Pen. Code, § 487, subd. (c)) and to misdemeanor resisting a peace officer (Pen. Code, § 148) and was declared a person described in section 602. At the disposition hearing the court reviewed the probation officer’s social study which outlined the bases of the section 602 petition and recommended that Adam be placed on probation under the supervision of the probation officer pursuant to section 725, subdivision (a).

2

Adam’s counsel generally agreed with the section 725, subdivision (a) recommendation but argued that the matter should be treated as a referral to a program of supervision under section 654.2, subdivision (a)

3

because at the end of a satisfactory section 654.2, subdivision (a) supervision period the petition must be dismissed. Adam’s counsel then requested that the section 725, subdivision (a) disposition be converted to a section 654.2, subdivision (a) at the end of the six-month probation period. The court placed Adam on probation under section 725, subdivision (a) and ordered a review hearing be held at which time a section 654.2, subdivision (a) motion would be heard. The court characterized the section 654.2, subdivision (a) motion as a motion to dismiss the petition.

At the review hearing the court found Adam had satisfactorily complied with the conditions of probation, denied the section 654.2, subdivision (a) motion and terminated jurisdiction. Adam appeals the court’s judgment denying his section 654.2 motion to dismiss the petition.

Discussion

On appeal Adam contends the court abused its discretionary power to dismiss the petition under section 654.2, subdivision (a). Adam argues his crime was minor, was his first offense and he had satisfactorily completed the terms of his probation. In response, the People argue the court considered all the relevant factors and therefore its denial of the motion to dismiss was