In re N.R.
B278221
| Cal. Ct. App. | Sep 21, 2017Background
- In April 2015 N.R. (then a high‑school junior) admitted a §602 petition for unlawfully taking a vehicle; the court placed him on the Community Detention Program and later granted a Deferred Entry of Judgment (DEJ) with conditions including daily school attendance, C grades minimum, and participation toward a diploma/GED.
- DEJ was set for 12 months (to June 2, 2016) with automatic dismissal and sealing if conditions were met; periodic progress hearings were held in Sept. and Dec. 2015 where the court warned that failure to attend school would lead to lifting DEJ.
- At the June 2016 hearing the court tentatively offered either continued DEJ (to improve grades/attendance) or lifting DEJ and terminating jurisdiction without automatic sealing; N.R. opted for additional time but was directed to show improved grades by Oct. 2016.
- By Oct. 2016 probation reported N.R. had dropped out of summer school, decided not to continue high‑school, and was working full time; the court found he elected to abandon education and thus had not complied with probation conditions.
- The court lifted DEJ, sustained the delinquency petition, declared N.R. a ward, and terminated jurisdiction; it declined to dismiss and seal records under Welf. & Inst. Code §§ 793 or 786, but noted N.R. could later seek sealing under § 781 after showing rehabilitation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the juvenile court abused its discretion in lifting DEJ under § 793 because N.R. stopped pursuing his education | Lifting DEJ was proper because N.R. willfully failed to comply with DEJ conditions (attendance/grades), so DEJ must be lifted | Lifting DEJ for quitting school is irrational and counterproductive because it reduces employability and punishes N.R. for seeking work | Court affirmed: lifting DEJ was not an abuse of discretion; education condition was lawful and N.R. willfully failed to comply |
| Whether the court abused its discretion by refusing to dismiss and seal records under § 793 (DEJ sealing) | Sealing under § 793 requires successful completion of DEJ; because N.R. failed DEJ, sealing was not required | N.R. argued he had otherwise satisfied obligations and sealing should be granted despite schooling decision | Court affirmed: no abuse of discretion; failure to comply with DEJ condition made him ineligible for § 793 automatic sealing |
| Whether the court abused its discretion by refusing dismissal and sealing under § 786 (satisfactory completion of probation) | If probation has been satisfactorily completed, § 786 requires dismissal and sealing; here the court found N.R. did not substantially comply | N.R. relied on A.V. and argued his overall probation performance warranted sealing under § 786 despite imperfect compliance | Court affirmed: § 786 relief is discretionary and the court reasonably found N.R. had not satisfactorily completed probation given his deliberate dropout; A.V. is distinguishable because that court had dismissed and implicitly found satisfactory completion |
| Whether there was insufficient evidence that N.R. willfully failed to comply with the education condition | (Respondent) Evidence supports a finding of willfulness: N.R. chose to quit school after prior warnings and opportunities | N.R. argued there was no proof of willfulness — his employment and other compliance show rehabilitation | Court held there was adequate evidence and appellant forfeited factual challenge by not raising it below; reliance on willful choice was reasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Angel J., 9 Cal.App.4th 1096 (Cal. Ct. App.) (education and school performance are reasonably related to future criminality; school conditions may be imposed in DEJ)
- In re A.V., 11 Cal.App.5th 697 (Cal. Ct. App.) (§ 786 requires only substantial compliance; if court dismisses petition for satisfactory completion it must also order sealing under § 786)
- In re Sergio R., 106 Cal.App.4th 597 (Cal. Ct. App.) (abuse of discretion standard applies to DEJ determinations)
- In re Sheena K., 40 Cal.4th 875 (Cal.) (failure to raise factual issues below forfeits them on appeal)