People v. Gabriel T.
3 Cal. App. 5th 952
Cal. Ct. App.2016Background
- Gabriel T., a juvenile, had prior informal probation (July 2015) for brandishing (§ 417(a)(1)) and assault; he later admitted a misdemeanor brandishing and was ordered not to possess weapons.
- New wardship petition (Nov 2015) alleged witness intimidation (§ 136.1(c)(1)) and robbery (§ 211); amended petition added grand theft from the person (§ 487(c)).
- On December 9, 2015, Gabriel admitted § 487(c) (the record was unclear whether it was treated as a misdemeanor or felony); restitution stipulated at $20.
- January 4, 2016 disposition: court committed Gabriel to a 12‑month Correctional Academy (6 months confinement + 6 months aftercare), authorized a one‑time 30‑day remediation during aftercare, ordered biological sample collection, imposed restitution/fines including a $50 Facilities Assessment, and ordered a firearm prohibition.
- On appeal the parties and court agreed multiple sentencing errors occurred; the court vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing with directions on specific errors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legality of 30‑day "one‑time remediation" during aftercare (due process/notice) | Probation’s remedial return to custody is authorized by program terms | Gabriel: such a provision lets PO return minor to custody without § 777/§ 630 notice and a detention hearing | Struck: violates Welf. & Inst. Code §§ 630/777; minor cannot be removed during aftercare without required notice/hearing |
| Firearm prohibition (Pen. Code §§ 29800/29805/29820) | Respondent: prior brandishing and alleged § 136.1 justify firearm ban | Gabriel: current adjudication was § 487(c) petty theft; court never invoked § 29820 or clearly aggregated prior disposition | Unclear on record; § 29800 (felony ban) inappropriate; court must clarify whether sentence was aggregated and, if so, articulate basis before imposing ban |
| Biological sample collection (Pen. Code § 296) | Respondent: collection authorized after adjudication | Gabriel: § 296 applies to felonies or sex‑offense registrants, not misdemeanants | Struck: collection not authorized for juvenile misdemeanor disposition; condition removed on remand |
| Classification of § 487(c) theft and aggregate sentence calculation | Respondent sought aggregate confinement including prior sustained brandishing | Gabriel: § 487(c) here is petty theft (≤ $950) and a misdemeanor; juvenile aggregate calculations limit total confinement | Held § 487(c) was a misdemeanor; sentence miscalculated/impermissible if based only on petty theft; court must clarify aggregation and resentence accordingly |
| Imposition of $50 Facilities Assessment (Gov. Code § 70372) | Respondent imposed assessment as part of restitution/fine package | Gabriel: construction penalty cannot be levied on restitution and juvenile wardship is not a criminal conviction | Struck: fee inapplicable to restitution and not authorized against juvenile ward under Welf. & Inst. Code § 203; assess removed on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Jorge Q., 54 Cal.App.4th 223 (1997) (issue reviewable on appeal when a justiciable controversy exists and recurring litigation likely)
- In re Jose T., 191 Cal.App.4th 1142 (2010) (juvenile may not be removed from home for probation violation without § 777 findings and hearing)
- In re Eric J., 25 Cal.3d 522 (1979) (use of Penal Code § 1170.1 aggregation calculations for juvenile misdemeanor confinement)
- Alejandro N. v. Superior Court, 238 Cal.App.4th 1209 (2015) (Pen. Code § 296 does not authorize biological sampling for juveniles convicted only of misdemeanors)
- In re Derrick B., 39 Cal.4th 535 (2006) (juvenile adjudication is not a criminal conviction for purposes of other statutes)