People v. Jon D.

Opinion

THOMPSON, J. A petition was filed to declare Jon D. a ward of the juvenile court because he had: (1) violated Vehicle Code section 23102 by driving while intoxicated; and (2) resisted arrest. The petition was amended to add a third count alleging reckless driving in violation of Vehicle Code section 23103.

The juvenile judge fully and completely recited the Tahl incantation, and the minor duly waived each Tahl right as it was recited. While the Tahl admonition included the statement of the possibility that Jon D. might be committed to camp or to the Youth Authority for a maximum period of 90 days, the juvenile court judge did not mention the possibility of a fine.

With the concurrence of his trial counsel, Jon D. admitted the allegations of the added third count charging reckless driving. The other charges were dismissed. The juvenile court judge stated his intention to declare Jon D. a ward of the court while placing him on probation [339]conditioned in part upon a 10-week camp program. After again consulting with his counsel, Jon D. rejected any probation conditioned in part upon a camp placement. The juvenile court judge then entered his disposition order declaring Jon D. a ward of the court, committing him to camp for the 90-day maximum period provided by Vehicle Code section 23103, and imposing the $250 maximum fine provided in that statute.

In this appeal, Jon D. attacks only that portion of the order which imposes the fine. He contends: (1) the juvenile court’s advice of the consequences of an admission of the charge was inadequate for failing to recite that a fine was a possible direct consequence of the admission as required by In re Yurko (1974) 10 Cal.3d 857 [112 Cal.Rptr. 513, 519 P.2d 516]; and (2) a juvenile court lacks power to impose a fine in a proceeding adjudicating wardship.

We conclude that, because the statutory scheme reciting the permissible alternatives available to the juvenile court in ordering the treatment of a minor which it has declared its ward for commission of a criminal offense does not include the power to levy a fine, that portion of the court’s order which imposes a fine must be stricken. We therefore do not reach Jon D.’s claim of Yurko error.

We note at the outset that the Attorney General’s brief does not address Jon D.’s contention that the juvenile court exceeded its statutory authority in imposing the fine. Rather than accepting the omission as a concession, we have analyzed the governing statutory scheme.