In re Jason L. CA1/5

Filed 7/17/14 In re Jason L. CA1/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE

In re Jason L., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A139402 v. (Alameda County Jason L., Super. Ct. No. SJ11017903) Defendant and Appellant.

Minor Jason L. was determined to be a habitual truant and declared a ward of the court. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 601, subd. (b).)1 He was placed on home probation with conditions that he regularly attend school. After finding that Jason continued to be truant and had engaged in “egregious” conduct which violated the conditions of his probation, the court modified the conditions to include a weekend custodial program and remanded Jason into custody for that purpose. Jason contends that the court’s custodial order must be annulled because the trial court failed to follow required contempt procedures before utilizing incarceration as punishment. The People concede the point. We agree and annul the order.

1 All further undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

1

I. BACKGROUND As a result of nonattendance at school, Jason and his mother agreed to the terms of a School Attendance Review Board contract. Jason failed to comply with the contract terms and was declared habitually truant by his school district. He agreed to participate in the truancy mediation program with the probation department and Alameda County District Attorney’s Office. Jason’s school attendance did not improve, and a wardship petition was filed on November 7, 2011. On January 6, 2012, Jason admitted the allegations of the petition. He was declared a ward of the court, committed to the custody of the probation officer, and was to reside in his mother’s home. Among the probation conditions were requirements that Jason attend classes daily and on time; notify the probation officer of tardiness, absence, or disciplinary action; report to, and cooperate with the probation officer, including participation in any recommended counseling program. At a February 15, 2013 review hearing, the probation officer reported that Jason was not passing any of his classes. The court stated that it was “not satisfied” with Jason’s school attendance and authorized up to 26 special Weekend Training Academy (WETA) sessions in juvenile hall if Jason was “not complying with what [he] need[ed] to do.” At a further review hearing on May 31, 2013, it was reported that Jason had accumulated six unexcused absences, three missed periods, two tardies, and one tardy of 30 minutes or more. Jason was not present when the probation officer conducted a school visit. The court imposed six out-of-custody WETA sessions. At a July 19, 2013 review hearing, it was reported that Jason had accumulated five unexcused absences, three missed periods, and one tardy of 30 minutes or more since the last review hearing. The court found that Jason’s “failure to comply with the court’s orders in terms of going to school and doing the WETA program” was “egregious.” The court ordered two in- custody WETA sessions and ordered Jason remanded to complete the first weekend. Jason’s counsel objected, arguing that Jason had not been provided with an affidavit, setting out specific charges of contempt of court, had not been given a proper opportunity