In Re RL

California Court of Appeal Feb 5, 2009 No. A120821Published

Before: Siggins

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the prohibition against multiple prosecutions under Penal Code section 654 and the Kellett rule is not violated when a juvenile petition is amended before the dispositional hearing of the initial charge has concluded. The case was remanded for the juvenile court to determine if multiple punishments are barred by section 654 and to specify whether the offenses are misdemeanors or felonies.

Issues

Does the filing of an amended juvenile petition after an admission to an initial charge but before the dispositional hearing violate the prohibition against multiple prosecutions under Penal Code section 654 and Kellett v. Superior Court?
Did the juvenile court fail to comply with Welfare and Institutions Code section 702 by not specifying whether the offenses were misdemeanors or felonies?

Disposition. remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“the bar of section 654 was not violated in this case because, even though R.L. had admitted to the "billy" charge, when the petition was amended he was still awaiting disposition of the "billy" charge and the proceedings had not concluded.”

“Section 654 does not bar all successive prosecutions, only those that follow an acquittal or a conviction and sentence.”

“The case is remanded to allow the juvenile court to consider whether punishment for both offenses is barred by section 654, and to declare whether each of R.L.'s offenses is a misdemeanor or a felony”

170 Cal.App.4th 1339 (2009) In re R.L., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,

R.L., Defendant and Appellant.

No. A120821. Court of Appeals of California, First District, Division Three.

February 5, 2009. CERTIORARI FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION.[*] [1341] Jenny Huang, Candace Chen and Justice First for Defendant and Appellant.

Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Assistant Attorney General, Laurence K. Sullivan and Martin S. Kaye, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

OPINION

SIGGINS, J.

This is a juvenile delinquency case. Following R.L.'s admission of an allegation that he unlawfully possessed a "billy" club, the prosecutor amended the juvenile petition to allege additional charges against him, including assault with a deadly weapon by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury. R.L. admitted the additional allegation of assault with a deadly weapon and the remaining allegations were dismissed. In this appeal, R.L. argues the juvenile court erred when it denied his motion to dismiss the amended petition brought under Penal Code[1] section 654, and the holding of Kellett v. Superior Court (1966) 63 Cal.2d 822 [48 Cal.Rptr. 366, 409 P.2d 206] (Kellett). In the published portion of this opinion, we conclude the prosecutor did not violate section 654's bar to multiple prosecutions or the rule in Kellett because proceedings on the first petition were not yet concluded when the amended petition was filed. R.L. also contends the court failed to specify whether his offenses were misdemeanors or felonies, as required by Welfare and Institutions Code section 702. We agree and remand for that purpose. On remand, we also direct the juvenile court to determine whether section 654's prohibition of multiple punishments limited R.L.'s possible maximum term of commitment.

In Re RL

AI Brief

OPINION

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

DISCUSSION

NOTES

AI Brief