50 Cal.App.5th 885
Cal. Ct. App.2020Background
- In Oct. 2018 S.J., a then-minor, drove after drinking, crashed into a parked car/fence; officers observed impairment and a .12% BAC.
- Contra Costa DA filed a §602 petition alleging misdemeanor DUI (Veh. Code, §23152(a)), DUI per se (Veh. Code, §23152(b)), and driving without a license (Veh. Code, §12500); the license count was later dismissed.
- Probation recommended denying postpetition informal supervision because of risk factors (poor grades, regular marijuana use, perceived lack of parental supervision) and the need for a search-and-seizure condition.
- The juvenile court denied informal supervision, sustained the two DUI allegations, declared S.J. a ward, placed him on home supervision, and imposed a $390 base fine plus about $1,355 in additional statutory penalties.
- On appeal the court affirmed the denial of informal supervision but held several of the additional statutory penalties inapplicable to juvenile wardship and remanded for recalculation of fines and penalties.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the juvenile court abused its discretion by denying postpetition informal supervision under Welf. & Inst. Code §§654/654.2 | People: Denial proper—juvenile posed risk (DUI .12, substance use, poor school performance, inadequate parental control) and effective community supervision required a search/seizure condition not available on informal supervision. | S.J.: No prior record, remorse, completed Alive by 25, family support, and substance‑treatment conditions could address risks; informal supervision should have been granted. | Affirmed. Court did not abuse discretion; need for a search/seizure term and the youth’s risk factors justified formal wardship. |
| Whether various statutory penalty assessments (Gov. Code §§70372, 76000, 76000.5, 76104.6, 76104.7, 76000.10; Veh. Code §23645) apply to juvenile wardship adjudications | People: Legislature intended juvenile penalties to align with adult criminal penalties; some penalties were properly imposed/collected alongside authorized surcharges. | S.J.: Many of the challenged penalties apply only to criminal convictions and are inapplicable because juvenile wardship is not a criminal conviction under Welf. & Inst. Code §203. | Reversed in part. The court struck the listed penalties as inapplicable to juvenile adjudications, retained the $390 base fine and the Penal Code §1464 surcharge authorized by Welf. & Inst. Code §730.5, and remanded for recalculation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Derick B. v. Superior Court, 180 Cal.App.4th 295 (2009) (explains statutory scheme and purpose of informal supervision under §§654 and 654.2)
- Gabriel T. v. Superior Court, 3 Cal.App.5th 952 (2016) (juvenile wardship is not a criminal conviction; certain adult court construction penalties inapplicable)
- In re T.P., 136 Cal.App.4th 1461 (2006) (fees/assessments that apply only to persons "convicted" are inapplicable to juveniles)
- Egar v. Superior Court, 120 Cal.App.4th 1306 (2004) (juvenile adjudications are not "convictions" for purposes of certain adult criminal fees)
- In re J.W., 29 Cal.4th 200 (2002) (statutory interpretation principle that express inclusion of one item implies exclusion of others)