In re Jonathan V.
B271319
| Cal. Ct. App. | Jan 9, 2018Background
- On Dec. 4, 2015, Jonathan (15) and companions allegedly robbed four victims; one accomplice pointed a gun. Jonathan was arrested and later released to home detention, then community detention.
- The People filed a juvenile petition alleging second-degree robbery, firearm enhancements, and gang enhancements; Jonathan initially denied the allegations and was detained, then placed on home detention and community detention.
- At a Feb. 10, 2016 trial-setting hearing (with Jonathan present), the prosecutor orally requested a two‑year juvenile restraining order barring contact with the victims; defense counsel objected, saying she had no prior notice and asked for a hearing.
- The juvenile court overruled counsel’s objections and signed a two‑year restraining order (form JV‑255) effective immediately and entered into CLETS; the court did not hold a prior noticed hearing or use the temporary‑order form (JV‑250).
- The appellate court held the order required reversal because section 213.5(d) permits longer restraining orders only after notice and a hearing; Jonathan received neither, and same‑day courtroom notice was inadequate given the order’s substantial consequences.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a multi‑year juvenile restraining order may be issued without prior notice/hearing | Rule 5.630 allows same‑day oral application and issuance of a temporary order | Section 213.5(d) and due process require advance notice and a hearing for orders longer than temporary duration; courtroom notice was insufficient | Court reversed: multi‑year order requires notice and a hearing under §213.5(d); same‑day issuance without notice violated due process |
| Whether temporary‑order procedures permit a two‑year order | Rule 5.630(d) permits issuance without notice for temporary orders | The statute limits no‑notice temporary orders to 21–25 days and requires form JV‑250; a two‑year order is not a temporary order | Court held rule cannot override statute; temporary no‑notice option inapplicable to a two‑year order |
| Whether oral same‑day notice satisfied due process | Oral notice is adequate in other contexts (cited cases) | Due process requires meaningful opportunity to prepare and present evidence for long‑term orders | Court held oral same‑day courtroom notice was inadequate for a two‑year restraining order |
| Whether reversal precludes future order | People argued urgency justified immediate order (public safety) | Defense emphasized CLETS effects and collateral consequences require procedural protections | Court reversed the order but left open that a new order may be entered with proper notice and hearing if warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- Babalola v. Superior Court, 192 Cal.App.4th 948 (court requires notice and opportunity to respond before issuing protective orders)
- In re Large, 41 Cal.4th 538 (purpose of notice and hearing is to permit presentation of information affecting decision)
- People v. Martinez, 22 Cal.4th 106 (CLETS entries and evidentiary use of protective orders)
- Rayburn v. Stewart, 132 F.3d 40 (9th Cir.) (parole revocation procedural‑notice context cited by People)
- Olson v. Arnett, 113 Cal.App.3d 59 (civil case where long notice mooted prejudice claim)
- Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (due process minimums in parole revocation context)
- Nasha v. City of Los Angeles, 125 Cal.App.4th 470 (procedural fairness/due process reviewed de novo)