In re Frankie A. CA1/3

Filed 3/28/14 In re Frankie A. CA1/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE

In re FRANKIE A., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

THE PEOPLE, A137865 Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Alameda County Super. Ct. No. SJ110179151) FRANKIE A., Defendant and Appellant.

The juvenile court declared Frankie A. (Frankie) a ward of the court after determining he was a habitual truant. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 601, subd. (b).)1 On appeal, he contends the juvenile court erred by remanding him to juvenile hall without following procedures applicable to contempt proceedings. He also argues that the court lacked authority to place him on GPS monitoring as a condition of probation. Because Frankie has achieved the age of majority and can no longer be considered a truant, we conclude the appeal is moot and must be dismissed. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In November 2011, the Alameda County District Attorney filed a petition alleging that Frankie was a habitual truant under section 601, subdivision (b). Frankie admitted

1 All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise specified.

1

the allegation and was declared a ward of the court. The probation department stated in subsequent progress reports that Frankie was not regularly attending school. In February 2012, the juvenile court remanded Frankie to spend the weekend in juvenile hall after finding that he had failed to attend school regularly. Frankie was ordered into custody again in March, April, and June 2012. At the progress hearing conducted in March 2012, the court also placed Frankie on GPS monitoring without objection. In October 2012, an electronic monitoring officer determined that Frankie had violated the terms of his GPS supervision and placed him in custody. The court released Frankie two days later. In November 2012, the court ordered Frankie to be placed on GPS monitoring again over defense counsel’s objection. Frankie filed a motion seeking to annul the court’s November 2012 order placing him on GPS monitoring. He argued that the court failed to follow procedures applicable to contempt proceedings and that the court lacked authority to impose GPS monitoring in the case of a truant. The juvenile court denied the motion in February 2013. Frankie timely appealed from the court’s order refusing to vacate GPS monitoring. DISCUSSION At the outset, it is necessary to clarify exactly which juvenile court actions are encompassed within this appeal. Frankie suggests the court remanded him into custody without following proper procedural protections. Specifically, he contends the court was required to comply with statutory procedures applicable to civil contempt proceedings before he could be placed in secure confinement during nonschool hours. However, the challenged orders from November 2012 and February 2013 did not involve a remand into custody. Indeed, the court specifically rejected a probation department recommendation to remand him into custody.2 Instead, the court placed him on GPS monitoring and