In re J.B., H049130

J.B., who was 14 at the time, shot and killed a juvenile in August 2012; the homicide investigation delayed filing nearly 14 months.
Earlier (2012–2013) J.B. admitted several non-707(b) offenses (firearm possession, resisting arrest) and was adjudicated a ward; those wardships terminated in October 2018 when he turned 21.
The homicide petition was filed and after transfer litigation J.B. was returned to juvenile court and in April 2021 admitted second‑degree murder, a §707(b) offense.
The juvenile court dismissed the earlier adjudicated petitions under Welf. & Inst. Code §782 (finding dismissal served the interests of justice and J.B.’s welfare) so that the most recently sustained petition would be treated as the operative offense and J.B. could be committed to DJJ; the court made written findings under court rule 5.790(a)(2)(A).
J.B. appealed, arguing the court lacked authority to dismiss adjudicated petitions solely to avoid the DJJ‑eligibility bar in §733(c); the Attorney General defended the dismissal as a proper exercise of §782 discretion.
The Court of Appeal affirmed, applying In re Greg F. and concluding §733(c) did not bar a §782 dismissal under these circumstances (no constitutional claim alleged; procedural safeguards and appellate review limit abuse).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether §733(c) precludes a juvenile court from dismissing earlier adjudicated petitions under §782 to permit commitment to DJJ on a more recent sustained 707(b) petition	§733(c) bars DJJ commitment when the most recent admitted offense in any petition is non‑707(b); dismissal to avoid that bar is impermissible	§782 gives broad discretion to dismiss petitions when in the interests of justice and welfare; the court properly exercised that discretion here	Court affirmed: §733(c) did not bar the §782 dismissal under these facts; dismissal and DJJ commitment were permissible and reviewed for abuse of discretion

In re Greg F., 55 Cal.4th 393 (Cal. 2012) (juvenile court may use §782 to dismiss a second petition so a DJJ commitment is possible on a probation violation)
In re D.B., 58 Cal.4th 941 (Cal. 2014) (plain language of §733(c) bars DJJ commitment when the most recent petitioned offense is nonviolent)
In re A.O., 18 Cal.App.5th 390 (Cal. Ct. App. 2017) (reversed dismissal made solely to secure DJJ commitment; court’s reasoning distinguishable on record and §782 invocation)
In re J.L., 168 Cal.App.4th 43 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (similar application of §782 to permit DJJ commitment in limited circumstances)
People v. Prunty, 62 Cal.4th 59 (Cal. 2015) (statutory interpretation principles; de novo review of statutory questions)
People v. Frahs, 9 Cal.5th 618 (Cal. 2020) (Legislature presumed aware of judicial constructions when amending statutes)
In re Juan C., 20 Cal.App.4th 748 (Cal. Ct. App. 1993) (purpose of written statement of reasons requirement to guard against improper dismissals)
In re Aline D., 14 Cal.3d 557 (Cal. 1975) (juvenile commitment proceedings are for rehabilitation and dismissal may be appropriate where no benefit exists)