In re Y v. CA1/4
Filed 1/14/16 In re Y.V. CA1/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FOUR
In re Y.V., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Y.V., A142355 Defendant and Appellant. (City & County of San Francisco Super. Ct. No. JW 14-6087)
Defendant Y.V., who was born in Honduras in 1996, entered the United States in 2013 as an unaccompanied minor. He appeals a dispositional order placing him on probation and ordering that he be released to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). We agree with Y.V. that the juvenile court incorrectly concluded it lacked discretion to consider other dispositions. We will reverse the dispositional order. I. BACKGROUND A juvenile wardship petition (Welf. & Inst. Code,1 § 602) filed on April 3, 2014 alleged that Y.V. sold a controlled substance on April 1, 2014 (Health & Saf. Code, § 11352, subd. (a)). The juvenile court ordered Y.V. detained. On April 25, 2014, the court, on the district attorney’s motion, amended the petition to allege Y.V. possessed a
1 All undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
1
controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)), and Y.V. admitted the allegation. Prior to the disposition hearing, the probation department submitted a report recommending that the court declare Y.V. a ward, commit him to juvenile hall for the time he had served, and then release him to the custody of ICE. The probation department stated Y.V. entered the United States “without legal documents” and was detained in June 2013 by ICE, which released him pending immigration proceedings. After his arrest in San Francisco on April 1, 2014, Y.V. was initially booked as an adult but was then transferred to the juvenile justice center. The probation report states: “An Immigration Detainer from the Department of Homeland Security, dated April 2, 2014, accompanied the file,” and, “[o]n April 18, 2014, ICE was notified of the youth’s change in institutions.”2 The probation department stated that, based on Y.V.’s prior detention by federal immigration authorities, ICE “has federal jurisdiction” over him. The department believed that Y.V. was a flight risk, that it was in his best interest to be reunited with his family in Honduras, and that any disposition that involved “ ‘placing’ ” him would violate federal law. Y.V. filed an alternative disposition memorandum, requesting that the court (1) place him on nonwardship probation (§ 725, subd. (a)) and order him placed in foster care, or, alternatively, (2) declare him a ward and place him in the custody of the probation department for out-of-home placement. At the contested disposition hearing on June 19, 2014, the court, consistent with the probation department’s recommendation, declared Y.V. a ward of the court and placed him on probation with the condition that he serve 84 days in juvenile hall (of
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)