Alonzo G. v. Super. Ct. CA5

Filed 11/19/14 Alonzo G. v. Super. Ct. CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

ALONZO G., Petitioner, F069485 v. (Super. Ct. No. JJD066008) THE SUPERIOR COURT OF TULARE COUNTY, OPINION Respondent;

THE PEOPLE,

Real Party in Interest.

THE COURT* ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for writ of prohibition and/or mandate. Lisa Bertolino, Public Defender, and Thomas C. McGuire, Assistant Public Defender, for Petitioner. No appearance for Respondent. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Louis M. Vasquez, Sean McCoy and Rebecca Whitfield, Deputy Attorneys General, for Real Party in Interest. -ooOoo-

* Before Kane, Acting P.J., Detjen, J., and Peña, J.

STATEMENT OF FACTS In 2012, the minor, Alonzo G., admitted a petition pursuant to Welfare and Institution Code section 602,1 which alleged felony second-degree robbery (Pen. Code, § 211) and a felony assault with force likely to cause great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 245). The minor was made a ward of the court and ordered to participate in the Youth Treatment Center Unit for a period of 90 to 180 days. On April 22, 2014, a section 602 petition was filed alleging that the minor violated Health and Safety Code sections 11378 (possession for sale) and 11550 (being under the influence). On May 13, 2014, a section 777 petition was filed alleging a violation of probation. On May 28, 2014, a hearing was held. The prosecution informed the court that the section 602 petition had been filed by mistake and requested the court to arraign the minor on the section 777 petition. The minor objected to the dismissal. At that hearing, the court did not expressly dismiss the section 602 petition. The section 602 petition was dismissed by minute order filed on May 28, 2014, which did not contain the findings required by In re Juan C. (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 728, 752-753 and In re Albert M. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 353. In re Greg F. (2012) 55 Cal.4th 393 stated:

“A juvenile court’s decision to dismiss a 602 petition under section 782 must be supported by a statement of ‘specific reasons’ in a minute order.” (In re Greg F., supra, 55 Cal.4th at p. 413.) This petition for writ for prohibition and/or mandate was filed on June 6, 2014. In its informal response filed on July 17, 2014, the Attorney General argues that the juvenile court expressed a sufficient reason when it stated at the hearing: