In re M.F.
D068971
| Cal. Ct. App. | Jan 12, 2017Background
- Minor M.F. detained at school after threatening a teacher and found with journals detailing plans to kill individuals, a supply list, and "hit lists." Police recovered ammunition, replica firearms, tactical gear, and evidence suggesting hidden weapons. M.F. admitted militia involvement and firearms training but claimed journals were cathartic.
- Juvenile wardship petition (§ 602) alleged criminal threats (Pen. Code § 422), threatening a public employee, and possession of ammunition; M.F. admitted the allegations in June 2015.
- At disposition, court removed M.F. from parental custody and committed him to the Youthful Offender Unit (YOU) for up to 480 days after contested hearing; M.F. appealed.
- At disposition the court admitted testimony and exhibits summarizing materials from M.F.'s cell phone and computer; the court relied on a psychologist (Dr. B.) who recommended prolonged residential treatment and found M.F. high risk for violent acting out.
- Probation condition 49 prohibited M.F. from knowingly possessing electronic devices except for employment or school-authorized projects. The court did not deduct predisposition custody credits when stating maximum confinement.
- Appellate court affirmed most of the disposition but reversed as to (1) the overbroad electronic-device probation condition and (2) failure to deduct 105 days of predisposition custody credits, and remanded for modification.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of electronic device evidence at disposition | People: evidence relevant to disposition and public safety; prosecution may present device contents | M.F.: testimony/exhibits cumulative and unduly prejudicial | Admissibility reviewed for abuse of discretion; court did not abuse discretion—evidence relevant and not unduly prejudicial |
| Placement in YOU (480 days) | People: YOU appropriate given threat, access to weapons, and need for prolonged residential therapy | M.F.: medical isolation harms him; less restrictive Breaking Cycles would suffice | Placement decision reviewed for abuse of discretion; substantial evidence supports YOU placement |
| Electronic-device probation condition (No possession except for work/school projects) | People: restriction related to crimes because M.F. used internet to research guns and concealment | M.F.: condition overbroad, restricts communication and information access (First Amendment) | Condition restricts free speech and was not narrowly tailored; remand to craft a narrower device-specific condition (e.g., allow non‑Internet phones) |
| Predisposition custody credit deduction | — (People did not oppose recalculation) | M.F.: entitled to credit for time in custody before disposition (105 days) | Court must deduct predisposition custody credits; remand to modify disposition to reflect 105 days credit |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Michael V., 178 Cal.App.3d 159 (court may consider relevant evidence at disposition)
- In re Eddie M., 31 Cal.4th 480 (disposition hearing governed by less exacting rules than jurisdiction hearing)
- In re Romeo C., 33 Cal.App.4th 1838 (Evidence Code §352 applies at disposition to exclude cumulative/prejudicial evidence)
- People v. Smithey, 20 Cal.4th 936 (cumulative evidence not necessarily irrelevant)
- In re Jordan R., 205 Cal.App.4th 111 (broad discretion on admissibility at disposition)
- In re Manzy W., 14 Cal.4th 1199 (section 702 requires designation of felony/misdemeanor; discretion may be shown by record)
- In re Sheena K., 40 Cal.4th 875 (probation conditions must be reasonably related and not overbroad)
- In re Victor L., 182 Cal.App.4th 902 (upholding device restriction where closely tied to crime; devices as tools of criminal enterprise)
- People v. Pirali, 217 Cal.App.4th 1341 (restricting Internet access can implicate First Amendment interests)
- In re Stevens, 119 Cal.App.4th 1228 (invalidating broad computer/Internet bans unrelated to offense)
- In re Nicole H., 244 Cal.App.4th 1150 (court may commit to more restrictive placement without first ordering less restrictive options)
- In re Jose T., 191 Cal.App.4th 1142 (review of placement for substantial evidence)
- In re Khalid B., 233 Cal.App.4th 1285 (consider disposition in light of juvenile law purposes)
- In re Shaun R., 188 Cal.App.4th 1129 (constitutional review of probation conditions is de novo)