242 Cal. App. 4th 1319
Cal. Ct. App.2015Background
- Trenton D., a juvenile, was found to have committed misdemeanor burglary and weapon/ammunition offenses earlier and was on probation; a supplemental petition later charged him with being a minor in possession of a firearm.
- The prosecutor filed Judicial Council form JV-750 (determination of DEJ eligibility) and the first page of form JV-751 (citation/notification) but the record lacks the second page containing the detailed statutory advisals required by Welf. & Inst. Code § 791(a).
- There is no evidence the (incomplete) JV-751 was properly served personally on Trenton’s custodial parent at least 24 hours before any DEJ hearing, as required by Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.800(c).
- Trenton, represented by counsel and with his mother present, pleaded not guilty, contested jurisdiction, and the court proceeded to a contested jurisdictional hearing without discussing DEJ; he was later adjudged a ward and committed to a six-month rehabilitation facility with 43 days custody credit.
- Trenton did not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence but argued on appeal that he received insufficient notice of his eligibility for a Deferred Entry of Judgment (DEJ) under Welf. & Inst. Code § 790 et seq.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Trenton received adequate notice and the court fulfilled its duty to consider DEJ suitability | The Attorney General: court need not consider DEJ because Trenton contested charges, which is a de facto rejection if properly notified | Trenton: he was not properly notified under § 791 and rule 5.800(c), so court never fulfilled its duty to consider DEJ | Reversed and remanded — statutory DEJ procedures were not followed; the court must provide required notice and determine DEJ suitability on remand |
| Whether missing second page of JV-751 can be presumed delivered by regularity of duty | AG: Presumption under Evid. Code § 664 should apply that notification occurred | Trenton: absence of the detailed advisals in the record rebuts presumption; no evidence of proper service | Court agreed with Trenton; omissions rebut presumption and require remand for compliance |
| Whether failure to schedule/notify of DEJ hearing denied due process | AG: contends no reversible error because minor contested charges | Trenton: insufficient notice deprived him of opportunity to elect DEJ and be heard | Court remanded without deciding constitutional liberty-interest question, relying on statutory noncompliance as sufficient ground |
| Custody credit calculation | Both parties: Trenton is entitled to 3 additional predisposition custody days | — | Court ordered dispositional order corrected to add three days credit |
Key Cases Cited
- Martha C. v. Superior Court, 108 Cal.App.4th 556 (discusses DEJ statutory scheme)
- In re Usef S., 160 Cal.App.4th 276 (minor who fails to admit/waive after proper advisal effectively rejects DEJ)
- In re Kenneth J., 158 Cal.App.4th 973 (same principle regarding contested charges and DEJ)
- In re C.W., 208 Cal.App.4th 654 (failure to file/serve JV-751 or otherwise advise minor required reversal and remand)
- In re D.L., 206 Cal.App.4th 1240 (failure to notify of DEJ hearing prejudiced minor; due process analysis)
- In re Luis B., 142 Cal.App.4th 1117 (court must follow specified DEJ procedures and exercise discretion after eligibility is established)
- In re Spencer S., 176 Cal.App.4th 1315 (prosecutor’s failure to initiate DEJ procedure forecloses minor’s opportunity to admit and pursue DEJ)
- In re Joshua S., 192 Cal.App.4th 670 (discusses record completeness and missing JV-751 page issues)