In Re TP

California Court of Appeal Sep 17, 2009 No. B209520Published

Before: Gilbert

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. A juvenile court's finding that a minor violated probation does not constitute a revocation of probation, and therefore does not render the minor ineligible for deferred entry of judgment (DEJ) under Welfare and Institutions Code section 790.

Issues

Does a finding of a probation violation constitute a revocation of probation for purposes of determining eligibility for deferred entry of judgment?
Is a minor who has had probation continued with modified terms eligible for deferred entry of judgment under section 790?

Disposition. reversed and remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“A juvenile court's finding that a minor violated his probation does not render the minor inelegible for deferred entry of judgment (DEJ). But a revocation of the minor's probation does.”

“The Attorney General concedes that a finding that T.P. violated probation is not the equivalent of a revocation of probation, and that absent actual revocation, the juvenile court erred by concluding that T.P. is ineligible for DEJ.”

178 Cal.App.4th 1 (2009) In re T.P., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,

T.P., Defendant and Appellant.

No. B209520. Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division Six.

September 17, 2009. [2] Richard B. Lennon, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Assistant Attorney General, Susan D. Martynec and Lance E. Winters, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

OPINION

GILBERT, P. J.

A juvenile court's finding that a minor violated his probation does not render the minor inelegible for deferred entry of judgment (DEJ). But a revocation of the minor's probation does.

[3] T.P. appeals a judgment finding, among other things, that he is ineligible for DEJ. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 800.)[1] The Attorney General concedes T.P.'s argument. We reverse and remand for further proceedings regarding DEJ. (§ 791, subd. (b); In re Usef S. (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 276, 283-284 [72 Cal.Rptr.3d 612] [following determination of statutory eligibility for DEJ, juvenile court independently determines minor's suitability therefor].)

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On March 16, 2007, the San Luis Obispo County prosecutor filed a three-count misdemeanor petition pursuant to section 602, alleging that T.P. resisted a police officer, committed vandalism, and committed vandalism of religious property. (Pen. Code, §§ 148, subd. (a)(1), 594, subd. (b)(2)(A), 594.3, subd. (a).) The prosecutor then twice amended the petition to omit the vandalism count, add a criminal street gang allegation, and add a count of felony street terrorism. (Id., §§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1), 186.22, subd. (a).) On June 13, 2007, T.P. admitted committing misdemeanor street terrorism, and the juvenile court dismissed the remaining counts and allegations. The court declared T.P. a ward of the court and placed him on formal probation with terms and conditions.

In Re TP

AI Brief

OPINION

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

DISCUSSION

NOTES

AI Brief