In re A.O.

California Court of Appeal Dec 12, 2017 No. B282149Published

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The juvenile court erred in granting a post-disposition motion to dismiss a count of a section 602 petition for the sole purpose of rendering a minor eligible for commitment to the Division of Juvenile Facilities. Such a dismissal lacks a sufficient statement of reasons in the minutes and fails to comply with the legislative intent of section 733(c).

Issues

Whether a juvenile court has the authority to dismiss a count of a section 602 petition post-disposition to create eligibility for a Division of Juvenile Facilities commitment.
Whether the juvenile court provided a sufficient statement of reasons in the minutes for the dismissal of the count.

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The juvenile court did not dismiss a section 602 petition at the disposition stage of the proceedings; instead, it dismissed a single count in a section 602 petition almost three years after disposition.”

“The minutes state that the court was dismissing count 2 and that “[t]his will now make the minor DJJ eligible.” This is a plainly insufficient statement of reasons for the dismissal.”

Filed 12/12/17

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SIX

In re A.O., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, 2d Juv. No. B282149 (Super. Ct. No. PJ50959) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County)

A.O.,

Defendant and Appellant.

A.O. appeals the juvenile court’s order recommitting him to the Division of Juvenile Facilities (DJF) pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code1 section 707, subdivision (b) (hereinafter section 707(b)). The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) rejected the initial commitment—which was ordered following a violation of probation—because it was based on a section 602 petition in which the most recent offense was not a DJF-qualifying offense (§ 733, subd. (c), hereinafter section 733(c)). The court then granted the prosecutor’s motion to dismiss the non-qualifying

1 All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise stated.

offense and ordered the recommitment. Appellant contends the court erred. We agree and reverse. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY In May 2014, a section 602 petition was filed alleging that appellant had committed a second degree robbery on April 30, 2014 (Pen. Code, § 211; count 1) and had resisted an executive officer on May 12, 2014 (id., § 69; count 2). Appellant subsequently admitted the allegations. The court declared him a ward, designated both offenses as felonies, and placed him home on probation with terms and conditions. In June 2016, appellant was ordered to complete a camp community placement program. In October 2016, appellant’s probation officer filed a notice of probation violation under section 777 alleging that appellant had violated probation by (1) assaulting another juvenile at camp; (2) refusing to follow school regulations, resulting in his suspension; (3) assaulting a probation officer; and (4) attempting to start a fight by spitting at another juvenile. Following a hearing on December 22, 2016, the court found the alleged violations true and ordered appellant committed to DJF for a maximum period of five years and eight months. Appellant was placed in juvenile hall while awaiting transfer to DJJ. The review process for his DJF commitment was delayed due to a deficiency in the commitment order regarding a prescribed medication. On March 9, 2017, DJJ sent the court a letter stating that appellant’s commitment order had been rejected because his most recent offense of resisting an executive officer “is not described in subdivision (b) of Section 707 or subdivision (c) of Section 290.008 of the Penal Code.” (§ 733(c).) At an April 4, 2017 hearing, the prosecutor “[made] a motion to dismiss count 2, the PC 69, so that [appellant] would become eligible for a DJJ commitment.” Appellant’s attorney

In re A.O.

AI Brief

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

PERREN, J.

GILBERT, P. J.

TANGEMAN, J.

AI Brief