People v. Adam R.

California Court of Appeal Aug 26, 1997 No. D027535Published

Before: McDonald

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. A juvenile court cannot simultaneously make true findings on a section 602 petition and order a section 654.2 informal supervision program, as the latter must occur pre-adjudication. Because the minor successfully completed the informal supervision program, the premature true findings are reversed and the petition is dismissed.

Issues

Whether a juvenile court may concurrently make true findings on a section 602 petition and order a section 654.2 informal supervision program.
Whether a section 654.2 informal supervision program must be completed prior to the adjudication of petition allegations.

Disposition. reversed and dismissed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The court cannot make true findings on allegations in the petition and then order an informal supervision program under section 654.2; the findings and the order are inherently inconsistent.”

“The order for a program of informal supervision under section 654.2, however, is appropriate prior to a court finding that the minor is within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court.”

“Because Adam did satisfactorily complete the program the true findings never became effective.”

Opinion

McDonald, J.

Procedural Background

In September 1996 the People filed an amended petition in the juvenile department of the superior court alleging that 12-year-old Adam R. is a person within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court under Welfare and Institutions Code

section 602 as a result of the commission of 7 residential burglaries. (Pen. Code, § 459.) The petition sought to have Adam declared a ward of the court

At the November 1996 adjudication hearing the court found true the petition allegations on two counts of residential burglary (Pen. Code, § 459) and dismissed the other five counts. The court found the maximum period of confinement to be seven years and four months. It then entered the following finding: “The Court finds unusual circumstances as follows: The Minor Was Under the Age of 12 Years at the Time the Offense Was Committed. The Co-Participants Were Substantially Older Than the Minor pursuant to WIC 654.3. Hearing on the petition filed September 13,1996 is continued for 6 months and the minor, with the minor and parent or guardian’s consent, is ordered to comply with the following program of supervision . . . :” The court then set forth the conditions of the program of supervision and ordered: “The matter is set for Informal Pros. (654.2) Rev. Hrg ... on May 12, 1997 .... Minor is ordered to return.”

At the adjudication hearing the court stated:

“I am finding the minor to be eligible under 654.3 . . . and I am going to put him under 654 contract, give him an opportunity at the age of 12 not to be a criminal for the rest of his life.

[351]

. . [I]f you [Adam] obey the terms and conditions [,] at the end of six months I am going to bring you back here and I will dismiss the petition so you will have no criminal record. . . ."

At the May 1997 informal probation review hearing the court ordered, “Court continues 654.2 contract for two months,” and set a further “informal prob. (654.2) rev. hrg. [for] July 25, 1997.” At the July 25, 1997, hearing the court found, “The minor has successfully complied with his . . . conditions of probation,” and ordered jurisdiction terminated.

People v. Adam R.

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief