In re S.L. CA2/3

Filed 9/29/14 In re S.L. CA2/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

In re S.L., a Person Coming Under the B250480 Juvenile Court Law. _____________________________________ (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. MJ22162) THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

S.L.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Nancy S. Pogue, Juvenile Court Referee. Vacated and remanded with directions. Torres & Torres and Tonja R. Torres, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Assistant Attorney General, Steven D. Matthews and Analee J. Brodie, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_________________________

By petition filed under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602,1 it was alleged that appellant S.L. had committed five separate acts of vandalism with damage exceeding $400. (Pen. Code, § 594, subd. (b).) Following a contested jurisdictional hearing, the juvenile court found the allegations true, sustained the petition, declared S.L. a ward of the court, and ordered him home on probation. The judgment is vacated and the matter is remanded for further proceedings. BACKGROUND After being stopped by a police officer for riding a bicycle without a helmet, 16- year-old S.L. admitted he was a member of a Lancaster tagging crew and had been responsible for five or six instances of graffiti vandalism. At the adjudication hearing, however, S.L. denied having committed any of the charged counts of vandalism and testified he admitted having done so only because he had been afraid of the officer. The juvenile court found all five counts true, declared S.L. a ward of the court, and ordered him home on probation. CONTENTION The judgment is flawed because there was no determination made regarding S.L.’s eligibility and suitability for a deferred entry of judgment (section 790, et seq.). DISCUSSION S.L. contends, and the Attorney General properly concedes, that the judgment in this case must be vacated and the matter remanded for further proceedings because the prosecutor failed to determine S.L.’s eligibility for the deferred entry of judgment program. 1. Legal principles. “ ‘The DEJ [deferred entry of judgment program] provisions of section 790 et seq. were enacted as part of Proposition 21, The Gang Violence and Juvenile Crime Prevention Act of 1998, in March 2000. The sections provide that in lieu of jurisdictional and dispositional hearings, a minor may admit the allegations contained in a section 602