In re E.G.
A146287M
| Cal. Ct. App. | Jan 13, 2017Background
- In 2013 E.G. (a juvenile) pled no contest to two "wobbler" offenses, including battery causing serious bodily injury, alleged as felonies; he was declared a ward, placed on probation, and committed to a youth facility for nine months.
- On earlier appeal this court remanded because the juvenile court had not recorded whether the wobblers were declared felonies or misdemeanors as required by Welf. & Inst. Code § 702.
- In July 2015 a different juvenile bench officer denied E.G.’s motion to reduce the battery from a felony to a misdemeanor under Penal Code § 17(b)(3), ruling § 17(b)(3) does not apply in juvenile proceedings.
- The juvenile court later confirmed (before the original disposition judge) that it had declared the offenses felonies and then terminated wardship and probation.
- The Court of Appeal considered whether § 17(b)(3) — which permits reduction of a wobbler to a misdemeanor when the court grants probation without imposition of sentence — applies in juvenile proceedings and whether the juvenile disposition was the functional equivalent of an adult probation-without-sentence.
- The court reversed the denial of the motion and remanded for the juvenile court to exercise its discretion under § 17(b)(3).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Penal Code § 17(b)(3) applies in juvenile proceedings | § 17(b)(3) is adult criminal procedure language (uses "defendant" and "sentence") and thus inapplicable to juveniles | § 17(b)(3) applies because juvenile statutes incorporate adult sentencing concepts and juvenile disposition can be the functional equivalent of adult probation without sentence | § 17(b)(3) applies in juvenile proceedings; courts must analyze functional equivalence and juvenile law consistency |
| Whether a juvenile probation+commitment is the functional equivalent of adult probation without imposition of sentence | N/A (People argued procedural differences defeat application) | E.G. argued his juvenile disposition functionally equated to adult probation without imposition of sentence | The juvenile disposition (wardship + probation/group-home term) is the functional equivalent, so § 17(b)(3) can authorize reduction |
| Whether applying § 17(b)(3) conflicts with juvenile-law principles (rehabilitation, different terminology) | People contended juvenile procedure lacks suspended imposition of sentence and thus § 17(b)(3) conflicts with juvenile principles | E.G. argued § 17(b)(3)’s rehabilitative purpose aligns with juvenile goals and statutory scheme | Court held § 17(b)(3) is consistent with juvenile rehabilitative and flexibility principles and not manifestly incompatible |
| Remedy on remand | People urged denial remains proper | E.G. sought remand for juvenile court to exercise § 17(b)(3) discretion | Court reversed denial and remanded for exercise of discretion under § 17(b)(3) |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Jovan B., 6 Cal.4th 801 (Cal. 1993) (adult criminal terms may apply in juvenile context when broader statutory scheme incorporates them)
- People v. Park, 56 Cal.4th 782 (Cal. 2013) (section 17(b) governs classification of wobblers)
- People v. Feyrer, 48 Cal.4th 426 (Cal. 2010) (statutes authorizing leniency for rehabilitation on probation explained)
- In re Alejandro N., 238 Cal.App.4th 1209 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015) (Penal Code reclassification provisions apply to juveniles given Welf. & Inst. Code § 602)
- In re Derrick B., 39 Cal.4th 535 (Cal. 2006) (refusal to apply certain adult statutory registration provisions to juveniles where statutory structure shows different treatment)
- In re Manzy W., 14 Cal.4th 1199 (Cal. 1997) (1976 juvenile-law amendments linked juvenile confinement limits to adult sentencing)
- Meyer v. Superior Court, 247 Cal.App.2d 133 (Cal. Ct. App. 1966) (legislative purpose of § 17(b)(3) is to allow reduction to misdemeanor to reward demonstrated rehabilitation)