In re R.M. CA3

California Court of Appeal Jul 29, 2014 No. C072838Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the juvenile court erred by failing to consider the minor for deferred entry of judgment (DEJ) because the prosecuting attorney failed to fulfill the mandatory duty to assess the minor's eligibility for DEJ.

Issues

Did the juvenile court abuse its discretion by failing to consider the minor for deferred entry of judgment?
Did the prosecuting attorney fail to fulfill the mandatory duty to assess the minor's eligibility for DEJ?

Disposition. reversed and remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The trial court’s decision as to the suitability of the minor for DEJ is discretionary. However, the prosecuting attorney’s duty to assess the eligibility of the minor for DEJ and furnish notice with the petition is mandatory.”

“Because the prosecuting attorney did not satisfy the statutory requirements, and the trial court did not conduct the necessary inquiry and exercise its discretion to determine whether defendant would benefit from DEJ, we must find error”

Filed 7/29/14 In re R.M. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (San Joaquin) ----

In re R.M., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, C072838

v. (Super. Ct. No. 68570)

R.M.,

Defendant and Appellant.

The minor, R.M., appeals from the juvenile court’s jurisdictional and dispositional orders, contending the juvenile court abused its discretion in not considering him for deferred entry of judgment (DEJ). The Attorney General properly concedes. We accept the concession, reverse the orders, and remand to allow the juvenile court to consider the minor for DEJ.

BACKGROUND In January 2011, Stockton police officers responded to a house party. After they told the juveniles present to leave the area, they saw the minor jaywalking and yelling at cars. The officers detained the minor and placed him in the back of a patrol car. While the officers engaged in further crowd control, the minor kicked out the rear driver-side window of the patrol car. The district attorney’s office filed a wardship petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 6021 charging the minor with one count of misdemeanor vandalism. (Pen. Code, § 594, subd. (a)(2).) The juvenile court dismissed the petition on its own motion on June 15, 2012. That same day, the district attorney refiled the petition, this time charging the minor with felony vandalism. (Pen. Code, § 594, subd. (a).) The minor filed a demurrer to the refiled petition. In the ensuing months, the district attorney filed two more petitions. The minor denied the petitions. The juvenile court overruled the demurrer. On December 6, 2012, the minor accepted a plea bargain. He agreed to admit the vandalism violation as a misdemeanor and the remaining petitions would be dismissed. The juvenile court held a disposition hearing on December 20, 2012. The court adjudged the minor a ward of the court and committed him to the Juvenile Justice Center for 31 days, with credit for time served of 46 days. The minor was also granted probation, including a restitution order.

In re R.M. CA3

AI Brief

THE PEOPLE,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

BUTZ , J.

AI Brief