History
  • No items yet
midpage
People v. Carlos H.
5 Cal. App. 5th 861
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2016
Read the full case

Background

  • Juvenile petition (Welf. & Inst. Code § 602) alleged Carlos H., age 15, committed two misdemeanor sexual battery acts against a female classmate; he admitted touching her and said he had “messed up.”
  • Before adjudication, the juvenile court issued a restraining order on form JV-255 requiring Carlos to "not contact, threaten, stalk or disturb the peace" of the victim and added two custom "other orders": stay 100 yards away and no contact through a third party.
  • Defense counsel objected that JV-255’s section 4 (for children in delinquency proceedings) does not expressly authorize “indirect” contact prohibitions or a specific stay-away distance—options found in section 5 (for non-children) but not applicable to minors.
  • The juvenile court found the section 9 “other orders” well tailored and appropriate; Carlos appealed only the inclusion of those additional restrictions after the adjudication rendered other challenges moot.
  • The Court of Appeal reviewed statutory interpretation de novo and the restraining-order issuance for abuse of discretion, and affirmed the juvenile court’s use of section 9 to add the stay-away and third-party contact prohibitions.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument (People) Defendant's Argument (Carlos) Held
Whether JV-255 section 9 may be used to add a stay-away distance (100 yards) for a juvenile respondent Section 9 permits "other orders" tailored to the case; juvenile court may craft specific protections under § 213.5 and rule 5.630 Section 4 and § 213.5(b) for juveniles do not expressly authorize specifying a distance; only section 5 (inapplicable) does, so distance cannot be imposed on a minor Court held section 9 can add tailored stay-away terms; stay-away was permissible and not an abuse of discretion
Whether JV-255 section 9 may be used to bar contact through third parties by a juvenile respondent Section 9 complements section 4 and § 213.5(b) to allow reasonable, case-specific restraints including indirect-contact prohibitions Because section 4 lacks the word "indirect" or express language from section 5, the juvenile may not be prohibited from third-party contact Court held prohibition on third-party contact was permissible under section 9 and consistent with § 213.5 and juvenile-court powers
Whether the form or statutory structure (expressio unius) precludes imposing protections on persons threatened by a minor that are available when an adult is restrained The form and statutes allow the juvenile court broad authority to issue reasonable, tailored orders to protect victims and public safety The omission of specific terms in the juvenile section means those terms cannot be implied; expressio unius est exclusio alterius bars such additions Court rejected strict expressio unius reading as inapplicable here; held juvenile protections need not be strictly narrower and section 9 avoids injustice
Whether including the two "other orders" was an abuse of discretion given rehabilitation and juvenile-law purposes Orders were reasonable, tailored, and consistent with rehabilitative and public-safety goals of juvenile delinquency law Orders exceed what form section 4 authorized and thus were arbitrary Court held orders were neither arbitrary nor capricious and affirmed the restraining order

Key Cases Cited

  • In re C.Q., 219 Cal.App.4th 355 (2013) (standards for review of juvenile restraining orders)
  • In re Cassandra B., 125 Cal.App.4th 199 (2004) (statutory interpretation of § 213.5 reviewed de novo)
  • Dyna–Med, Inc. v. Fair Employment & Housing Com., 43 Cal.3d 1379 (1987) (expressio unius is a guide used only when statute is ambiguous)
  • Gikas v. Zolin, 6 Cal.4th 841 (1993) (discusses expressio unius and statutory construction)
  • Estate of Banerjee, 21 Cal.3d 527 (1978) (limits on expressio unius; exceptions where exclusion would cause injustice)
  • In re Michael G., 44 Cal.3d 283 (1988) (expressio unius inapplicable where it would contradict legislative intent)
Read the full case

Case Details

Case Name: People v. Carlos H.
Court Name: California Court of Appeal
Date Published: Nov 18, 2016
Citation: 5 Cal. App. 5th 861
Docket Number: B268893
Court Abbreviation: Cal. Ct. App.