In re A.O.
B282149M
| Cal. Ct. App. | Jan 10, 2018Background
- In May 2014 A.O. admitted two counts in a section 602 petition: second-degree robbery (Pen. Code § 211) and resisting an executive officer (Pen. Code § 69). He was declared a ward and placed on probation.
- In October 2016 probation violations were alleged after incidents at camp; after a December 22, 2016 hearing the juvenile court found the violations true and committed A.O. to the Division of Juvenile Facilities (DJF).
- The DJF (DJJ) rejected the commitment in March 2017 because A.O.’s most recent adjudicated offense (the § 69 count) is not a DJF-qualifying offense under Welfare & Inst. Code § 733(c).
- At an April 4, 2017 hearing the prosecutor moved to dismiss the § 69 count post-disposition so A.O. would become DJF-eligible; the court granted the motion and DJF recommitted A.O.
- A.O. appealed, arguing the court lacked authority to dismiss a count post-disposition solely to create DJF eligibility; the Court of Appeal reversed and remanded for a new disposition hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the juvenile court may dismiss a post-disposition count to render a minor DJF-eligible | The People: court can dismiss under section 782 (as discussed in In re Greg F.) to permit DJF commitment | A.O.: court lacked authority to dismiss an admitted count years after disposition solely to secure DJF placement; § 733(c) bars such a tactic | Reversed: court erred to dismiss the count post-disposition to obtain DJF commitment; remand for new disposition hearing |
| Whether dismissal complied with § 782 procedural requirements (statement of reasons in minutes) | The People: the court’s on-the-record remark and minutes suffice | A.O.: minutes lacked the statutorily required statement of reasons for a § 782 dismissal | Held: minutes insufficient; failure to state reasons renders dismissal ineffective |
Key Cases Cited
- In re D.B., 58 Cal.4th 941 (Legislature intended to preclude DJF commitment when most recent adjudicated offense is nonqualifying)
- In re Greg F., 55 Cal.4th 393 (juvenile court has discretion under § 782 to dismiss petitions in interests of justice, but post-disposition dismissals raise concerns)
- In re Juan C., 20 Cal.App.4th 748 (§ 782 dismissal must be supported by reasons set forth in the minutes)
- People v. Haro, 221 Cal.App.4th 718 (describes § 782 as a general dismissal statute similar to Penal Code § 1385)