In re C.F. CA3
C092791
| Cal. Ct. App. | Jun 22, 2021Background
- In Sept. 2018, C.F. was adjudicated a ward after admitting to two counts of sexual battery and one count of assault (misdemeanors) and placed on wardship probation; restitution was deferred initially.
- Restitution hearings in Feb. and Apr. 2019 resulted in orders requiring C.F. to pay $899.88 and an additional $330 to victims.
- On Aug. 25, 2020, C.F. moved to terminate wardship jurisdiction under Welfare & Institutions Code §§ 775 and 778 (changed circumstances: family moving out of state).
- The People filed a motion to reopen restitution and an opposition to termination on Sept. 16, 2020 (the day before the hearing).
- At the Sept. 17, 2020 hearing the juvenile court refused to consider the People’s restitution motion as untimely, granted C.F.’s termination motion, and dismissed the wardship under § 786.
- The People appealed from the juvenile court’s refusal to consider their restitution motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the People may appeal the juvenile court’s refusal to hear a restitution motion as an appealable order under Welf. & Inst. Code § 800(b)(2) | The order is appealable under § 800(b)(2) as an "order made after judgment entered pursuant to § 777 or § 785." | The order is not one of the enumerated appealable orders under § 800, so no appeal lies. | Appeal dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction: the order is not one made after judgment under § 777 or § 785 and thus not appealable under § 800(b)(2). |
| Whether the court should treat the nonappealable appeal as a petition for writ of mandate | (People did not request writ treatment) | The order was discretionary, not in excess of jurisdiction; writ relief is not warranted. | Court declines to treat the appeal as a writ petition because the order was discretionary and not in excess of jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Almalik S., 68 Cal.App.4th 851 (1998) (appellate courts lack authority to hear appeals absent statutory authorization)
- People v. Superior Court (Arthur R.), 199 Cal.App.3d 494 (1988) (the People’s right to appeal in juvenile proceedings is conferred exclusively by statute)
- People v. Chi Ko Wong, 18 Cal.3d 698 (1976) (appealability in juvenile cases is limited to orders enumerated by statute)
- People v. Superior Court (Manuel G.), 104 Cal.App.4th 915 (2002) (§ 800(b)(2) does not reach orders not tied to § 777 or § 785)
- H.D. Arnaiz, Ltd. v. County of San Joaquin, 96 Cal.App.4th 1357 (2002) (appellate court may treat a nonappealable order as a writ petition only in unusual circumstances)