People v. Omar R.

California Court of Appeal Feb 5, 2003 No. C039391Published

Before: Raye

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that although the juvenile court exceeded its jurisdiction by granting informal supervision after an adjudication of the petition, the minor is estopped from challenging the error because he consented to the procedure to obtain a benefit. Furthermore, the court held that a pending appeal of a suppression motion does not divest the trial court of jurisdiction to supervise probation or address violations of probationary conditions.

Issues

Whether the juvenile court lacked jurisdiction to revoke informal probation due to non-compliance with Welfare and Institutions Code section 654.2.
Whether the filing of a notice of appeal regarding a suppression motion divested the juvenile court of jurisdiction to proceed to disposition.
Whether the minor is estopped from challenging the court's failure to comply with section 654.2 after consenting to the procedure.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The juvenile court’s acceptance of the minor’s admission to the charge constituted an adjudication of the petition, a procedure “inherently inconsistent” with the purpose of section 654.2.”

“Permitting the minor to challenge the plea agreement after having obtained its benefit would indeed allow the minor to “trifle with the court.””

“Pending the resolution of an appeal, the trial court retains jurisdiction to supervise a probationer and to punish violations of any probationary conditions.”

Opinion

RAYE, J.

On December 18, 2000, following the juvenile court’s denial of minor Omar R.’s motion to suppress evidence of marijuana found on his person (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 700.1),

the court accepted the minor’s admission to a charge of possession of marijuana (Health & Saf. Code, § 11357, subd. (b)). The minor’s admission was given in exchange for his

[1437]

being placed on informal supervision pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 654.2. The minor was so placed with a six-month review set for June 15, 2001. On December 21, 2000, the minor filed a notice of appeal challenging the denial of the suppression motion.

On June 15, 2001, the matter was continued to September 14 for further review because the minor had not completed some of the conditions of his informal supervision. On September 14, the court found that the minor had violated conditions of his informal supervision. Accordingly, the court sustained the petition based upon the minor’s admission that he had possessed marijuana, declared the minor a ward of the court, and placed him on probation.

On appeal from the dispositional order of September 14, 2001, the minor contends the court lacked jurisdiction to revoke his informal probation because (1) the court failed to follow the procedures set forth in section 654.2, and (2) the notice of appeal filed December 21, 2000, precluded the court from taking further action in the case. He also argues the case must be dismissed because the court wrongfully denied his suppression motion, a contention we rejected in a previously filed nonpublished opinion.

(In re Omar R., supra,

C037297.) The People concede that remand is required because of the juvenile court’s failure to comply with section 654.2. We disagree with both parties and shall affirm the dispositional order.

Discussion

People v. Omar R.

AI Brief

RAYE, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief