People v. A.O. (In re A.O.)
18 Cal. App. 5th 390
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2017Background
- In May 2014 a WIC §602 petition alleged appellant committed second-degree robbery (Pen. Code §211) and resisting an executive officer (Pen. Code §69); appellant admitted both offenses and was placed on probation.
- In October 2016 probation alleged multiple probation violations; after a December 22, 2016 hearing the court found violations true and committed appellant to DJF (Division of Juvenile Facilities).
- DJJ rejected the commitment because the most recent offense admitted in the §602 petition was Pen. Code §69, which is not a §707(b)-qualifying offense, triggering WIC §733(c).
- At an April 4, 2017 hearing the prosecutor moved to dismiss the §69 count post-disposition to make appellant DJF-eligible; the juvenile court granted the motion and recommitted appellant to DJF.
- Appellant appealed contending the post-dispositional dismissal of the §69 count (solely to obtain DJF commitment) was improper; the appellate court agreed and reversed, remanding for a new disposition hearing on the §777 probation violation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a juvenile court may dismiss a count post-disposition to render a ward DJF-eligible under §733(c) | Prosecutor/People: The court may dismiss under WIC §782 (as contemplated by In re Greg F.) to enable DJF commitment | Appellant: Post-dispositional dismissal of an admitted count to obtain DJF commitment is improper and conflicts with §733(c) and procedural requirements | Court: Reversal — post-dispositional dismissal of the §69 count for the sole purpose of obtaining DJF commitment was improper here; remand for new disposition hearing |
| Whether §782 dismissal requirements were satisfied | People: Greg F. supports dismissal power; court effectively exercised discretion | Appellant: §782 requires stated reasons in the minutes and the record; here reasons were insufficient | Court: The minute order and on-the-record statement were inadequate; mandatory §782 minute-entry requirement not met |
| Whether Greg F. authorizes post-dispositional dismissals to circumvent §733(c) | People: Greg F. allows dismissal discretion that could encompass this situation | Appellant: Greg F. does not authorize dismissal after disposition for the sole purpose of altering DJF eligibility | Court: Greg F. does not resolve or justify post-dispositional dismissal here; D.B. and §733(c) limit such maneuvering |
| Whether remand is required for a new disposition | People: Committed after dismissal; no remand argued | Appellant: Order should be reversed and disposition revisited | Court: Remanded for new disposition hearing on the §777 probation violation |
Key Cases Cited
- In re D.B., 58 Cal.4th 941 (interpreting WIC §733(c) to bar DJF commitment when the most recent admitted offense is non-qualifying)
- In re Greg F., 55 Cal.4th 393 (discussing interplay of WIC §782 dismissal power and §733(c))
- In re Juan C., 20 Cal.App.4th 748 (requiring statement of reasons in minutes for §782 dismissals)
- People v. Haro, 221 Cal.App.4th 718 (discussing §782 as a general dismissal statute analogous to Penal Code §1385)