People v. Albert C. (In Re Albert C.)
219 Cal. Rptr. 3d 897
Cal.2017Background
- At 14–15, Albert C. was charged in juvenile wardship petitions; after counsel expressed doubt, the court suspended proceedings and detained him as incompetent.
- Expert opinion found Albert unable to assist counsel but likely could attain competency within 12 months with services.
- Los Angeles Juvenile Division Protocol (2012) advised that detained incompetent minors should not be held more than 120 days to receive competency attainment services.
- Despite the Protocol, Albert remained detained in juvenile hall for 354 days while the court and agencies sought less restrictive placement; the court later found evidence of malingering and reinstated proceedings.
- Albert admitted to two counts and was adjudicated a ward; he appealed, arguing that detention beyond the Protocol’s 120‑day limit presumptively violated due process.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether violation of the LA Protocol’s 120‑day limit creates a rebuttable presumption of due process violation | Albert: Protocol’s 120‑day cap creates a presumptive due process violation if exceeded | People: Protocol is nonbinding guidance; exceeding it does not presumptively violate due process | No — Protocol lacks force of law and does not by itself define or create a presumption of due process violation |
| Whether Jackson/Davis due‑process limits apply to detained juveniles found incompetent | Albert: Jackson/Davis protections against indefinite commitment apply and prohibit detention absent progress | People: Jackson/Davis apply but do not mandate the Protocol; local rules may be more protective | Jackson/Davis apply to juveniles, but jurisdictions may adopt tighter limits or guidance than those cases require |
| Whether the Protocol conflicts with Welfare & Inst. Code § 709 or federal cases | Albert: Protocol reflects Jackson/Davis and implements § 709; violation presumptively unconstitutional | People: Protocol is advisory and not statutorily authorized; § 709 does not preempt local limits | Protocol does not conflict with § 709; § 709 is silent on detention so local rules or protocols may constrain detention further |
| Whether any due process violation requires reversal of Albert’s adjudication | Albert: Excessive detention prejudiced his case | People: No prejudice because court found malingering and competency at time of admission | Any possible due process violation was harmless because the juvenile court found Albert was malingering and competent when proceedings resumed; judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Indiana, 406 U.S. 715 (limits on indefinite commitment for incompetents)
- In re Davis, 8 Cal.3d 798 (adoption of Jackson reasonableness review and periodic reporting)
- Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 (standard for competency to stand trial)
- In re R.V., 61 Cal.4th 181 (juvenile right not to be tried while incompetent)
- In re Jesus G., 218 Cal.App.4th 157 (Court of Appeal decision holding Protocol violation presumptively violates due process — disapproved insofar as it treated the Protocol as defining constitutional limits)