In re H.N., B313698M

H.N., a 15‑year‑old, secretly videotaped consensual sexual intercourse with a 15‑year‑old peer; charged under Penal Code §311.11(a) for possession of child pornography.
Juvenile court sustained a Welf. & Inst. Code §602 petition, found H.N. possessed child pornography, placed him on home probation, and announced a three‑year maximum confinement term.
The juvenile court did not make an express Welf. & Inst. Code §702 finding declaring the offense a felony or misdemeanor.
The People argued §311.11(a) is a straight felony and no §702 finding was required; H.N. argued the statute remains a wobbler and a §702 finding was mandatory.
The Court of Appeal held the statute should be treated as a wobbler for juvenile cases in appropriate circumstances, remanded for a §702 finding, and struck the three‑year maximum confinement because H.N. remained on home probation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Penal Code §311.11(a) is a "wobbler" requiring a Welf. & Inst. Code §702 felony/misdemeanor declaration	The statute labels the offense "guilty of a felony" after Prop. 83, so it is a straight felony; no §702 finding required	The statute retained alternative county jail punishment language; that preserves wobbler status and §702 requires a declaration; lenity favors defendant	The court held §311.11(a) can be a wobbler as applied to juveniles; remand required for a §702 finding and courts may declare misdemeanor or felony based on facts and juvenile purposes
Whether the juvenile court’s three‑year maximum confinement finding is valid where the minor was placed on home probation	The People maintained the maximum confinement finding	H.N. argued a confinement term cannot be imposed when placed on home probation	The court struck the three‑year maximum confinement finding because the minor was not removed from parental custody and was placed on home probation

In re Manzy W., 14 Cal.4th 1199 (1997) (§702 finding mandatory where offense is punishable alternatively as felony or misdemeanor)
In re Grant, 58 Cal.4th 469 (2014) (discusses wobbler concept and sentencing alternatives)
People v. Westerfield, 6 Cal.5th 632 (2019) (noted prior §311.11 was a wobbler; did not decide status of amended statute)
People v. Manfredi, 169 Cal.App.4th 622 (2008) (dicta recognizing §311.11 can be punished as felony or misdemeanor)
People v. Beebe, 216 Cal.App.3d 927 (1989) (straight felony cannot provide alternative county jail term)
People v. Mauch, 163 Cal.App.4th 669 (2008) (alternative sentencing language provides authority to treat offense as misdemeanor)
In re E.G., 6 Cal.App.5th 871 (2016) (interpretation of voter initiatives and juvenile‑law interaction)
In re A.C., 224 Cal.App.4th 590 (2014) (strike maximum confinement term when minor remains at home on probation)
Thompson v. Oklahoma, 487 U.S. 815 (1988) (recognizes diminished culpability of juveniles)