California Court of Appeal Aug 26, 2022 No. E078558Unpublished
Filed 8/26/22 In re J.A. CA4/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
In re J.A., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
THE PEOPLE, E078558 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. J290213) v. OPINION J.A.,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Susan Slater,
Judge. Affirmed as modified with directions.
Savannah R. Montanez, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant
and Appellant.
Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney
General, Charles C. Ragland, Collette C. Cavalier and Joy Utomi, Deputy Attorneys
General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
1
I.
INTRODUCTION
J.A. (minor) appeals from the juvenile court’s dispositional orders. He contends
(1) the probation condition prohibiting him from “possessing or acting like he possesses a
deadly weapon” is unconstitutionally vague or overbroad; (2) the 15-percent
administrative processing fee requiring him to pay restitution to the victim should be
stricken pursuant to Assembly Bill No. 177; and (3) the maximum term of confinement
as those sections read on December 31, 2021, shall be unenforceable and uncollectible
and any portion of a judgment imposing those costs shall be vacated.” (Pen. Code, §
1465.9, subd. (b), italics added.)
8
Assembly Bill No. 177 also repealed and then re-enacted Penal Code section
1203.1, effective January 1, 2022, eliminating former subdivision (l), which authorized
the court to impose an administrative fee to cover the costs of collecting the restitution
award in an amount not to exceed 15 percent of the total amount ordered to be paid.
(Stats. 2020, ch. 257, §§ 21, 22.) In enacting Assembly Bill No. 177, the Legislature
sought “to eliminate the range of administrative fees that agencies and courts are
authorized to impose to fund elements of the criminal legal system and to eliminate all
outstanding debt incurred as a result of the imposition of administrative fees.” (Stats.
2021, ch. 257, § 2.)
Based on its plain language, Assembly Bill No. 177 renders the 15-percent
administrative processing fee imposed on January 25, 2022, after the passage of
Assembly Bill No. 177, unenforceable and uncollectible. We therefore strike the
administrative processing fee imposed under former section 1203.1, subdivision (l). (Cf.
People v. Clark (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 248, 259.)
C. Maximum Term of Confinement in Minute Order
Minor contends the juvenile court erred by setting a maximum term of
confinement because he was not removed from the physical custody of his father. He
therefore requests that we strike the maximum term from the juvenile court’s
jurisdictional/dispositional order. The People agree, as do we.
Welfare and Institutions Code section 726, subdivision (d)(1) provides: “If the
minor is removed from the physical custody of the minor’s parent or guardian as the
9
result of an order of wardship made pursuant to [Welfare and Institutions Code] [s]ection
602, the order shall specify that the minor may not be held in physical confinement for a
period in excess of the middle term of imprisonment which could be imposed upon an
adult convicted of the offense or offenses which brought or continued the minor under the
jurisdiction of the juvenile court.” (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 726, subd. (d).)
When a minor is not removed from the physical custody of his or her parent or
custodian as a result of criminal violations sustained under Welfare and Institutions Code
section 602, Welfare and Institutions Code section 726, subdivision (d) does not apply
and the juvenile court is without authority to set a maximum term of confinement. (In re
Matthew A. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 537, 541; In re Ali A. (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 569,
571 [“When a juvenile ward is allowed to remain in his parents’ custody, there is no
physical confinement and therefore no need to set a maximum term of confinement”],
overruled on another ground in In re A.C. (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 590, 592.)
Here, minor was not removed from parental custody. Accordingly, the juvenile
court erred in specifying a maximum term of confinement. “‘[W]here a juvenile court’s
order includes a maximum confinement term for a minor who is not removed from
parental custody, the remedy is to strike the term.’ [Citation.]” (In re H.N. (2022) 76
Cal.App.5th 962, 973, quoting In re A.C., supra, 224 Cal.App.4th at p. 592.)
10
IV.
DISPOSITION
The 15 percent administrative processing fee is stricken from probation condition
18. The maximum confinement term is also stricken from the juvenile court’s
jurisdictional/dispositional order. The juvenile court is directed to amend the written
conditions of minor’s probation and the January 25, 2022 jurisdictional/dispositional
order. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
CODRINGTON J.
We concur:
RAMIREZ P. J.
McKinster J.
11
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court held that a probation condition prohibiting the minor from acting like he possesses a deadly weapon is constitutional, but struck an administrative processing fee and a maximum term of confinement because the minor remained in parental custody.
Issues
Whether a probation condition prohibiting a minor from 'acting like' he possesses a deadly weapon is unconstitutionally vague or overbroad.
Whether a 15-percent administrative processing fee for victim restitution must be stricken under Assembly Bill No. 177.
Whether a juvenile court may set a maximum term of confinement when a minor is not removed from parental custody.
Disposition. Affirmed as modified with directions.
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“We find probation condition 10 to be constitutional.”
“Assembly Bill No. 177 renders the 15-percent administrative processing fee imposed on January 25, 2022, after the passage of Assembly Bill No. 177, unenforceable and uncollectible.”