In re Giovanni C. CA1/2
Filed 12/20/13 In re Giovanni C. CA1/2 Opinion following rehearing NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
In re GIOVANNI C., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A137752 v. GIOVANNI C., (Alameda County Super. Ct. No. SJ12185861) Defendant and Appellant.
The issue briefed by the parties is whether the juvenile court has the power under the contempt provision of the Juvenile Court Law (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 213) to order the minor remanded into custody—in plain language, detained or incarcerated—for persistent violation of the court’s order directing the minor to attend school. During the pendency of this appeal, Division Three of this District held that a juvenile court remand order is not appealable, and that the juvenile court must follow the contempt procedures specified in the Code of Civil Procedure. The period of the minor’s remand has ended, thus mooting this appeal from the remand order, which in any event is not appealable. However, due to certain unusual circumstances, we shall treat the purported appeal as a petition for extraordinary relief, which we will grant, and order the juvenile court to annul the remand order.
1
BACKGROUND Giovanni C. does not like attending school. After being declared an habitual truant by his school district, truancy mediation with the probation officer and the prosecuting attorney failed to correct the problem. This led to the prosecuting attorney filing a wardship petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 601, subdivision (b). On May 4, 2012, Giovanni admitted the allegations of the petitions, expressly acknowledging that he was in court “because of my lack of going to school,” and that he would “be ordered to attend school each day, every day, every class, on time.” His admission came after the court told him, “If you were to violate court orders, you could be ordered to participate in the weekend training academy. [¶] . . . [¶] And you could spend time in juvenile hall on the weekends if you were to violate court orders.” Giovanni was declared a ward of the juvenile court, and admitted to probation upon specified conditions, among which were: “You’re to attend school each day, every day, every class, on time and remain in those classes while they are in session. [¶] You’re not to leave school until you finish your classes. [¶] You are to notify your probation officer of any tardies, absences, or disciplinary actions by school officials within seven days.” The following month the probation officer advised the court: “Since Giovanni last appeared in Court he has accumulated 4 days of absences, 38 missed periods, 11 tardies, and 3 tardies more than 30 minutes late . . . . [¶] . . . [T]he Assistant Principal . . . suspended Giovanni on May 11, 2012 for cutting school and he was supposed to return on Monday May 14, 2012 and Giovanni still cut class without any improvement in his attendance. Giovanni has completed his first year of high school and has completed 0 of the 55 credits attempted. He has received all F’s in every class this entire school year. . . If the Court is so inclined, this Deputy is not opposed to remand.”
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)