People v. Greg F.
55 Cal. 4th 393
Cal.2012Background
- Two statutes govern DJF commitments: section 733(c) bars DJF for wards whose most recent offense (admitted or found true) is not a violent or sex offense, while section 782 permits dismissal of a petition if in the interests of justice and for the minor’s welfare.
- A ward on DJF-eligible probation can be revoked and DJF-committed for a probation violation (section 111/777 notice).
- If a new non-DJF-eligible offense is alleged in a new 602 petition, section 733(c) may prohibit a DJF commitment based on that petition’s most recent offense.
- This case concerned using section 782’s dismissal power to treat a non-DJF-eligible 602 petition as a probation violation for a DJF-eligible disposition.
- The question presented: whether the trial court can dismiss the 602 petition under section 782 to permit a DJF commitment for the prior, DJF-eligible offense.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does section 733(c) override section 782’s dismissal power? | Minor argues 733(c) overrides 782 by restricting DJF to those with DJF-eligible most recent offenses. | People argue 782 is unrelated to 733(c) and may be used to preserve DJF options. | No; 733(c) does not eliminate 782 discretion. |
| May a court dismiss a 602 petition under 782 to enable a DJF commitment for a prior DJF-eligible offense? | Minor contends dismissal to preserve DJF would circumvent 733(c). | People contend dismissal can align with interests of justice and minor’s welfare. | Yes; dismissal under 782 may be used to reach a DJF commitment for a prior DJF-eligible offense. |
| Is 782 limited to terminating jurisdiction or may it “reach back” to an earlier petition? | Minor argues 782 can only terminate jurisdiction, not reuse earlier petitions. | People argue 782 can reach back to preserve DJF options. | 782 may be used to reach back when in interests of justice and welfare, avoiding absurd results. |
| Does using 782 after jurisdiction is entered undermine 733(c)’s limits on DJF eligibility? | Minor contends post-jurisdiction dismissal would bypass 733(c). | People argue harmonization is possible; 782 can modify the operative petition for 733(c). | No irreconcilable conflict; 733(c) and 782 operate concurrently to allow DJF when appropriate. |
Key Cases Cited
- VC. v. Superior Court, 173 Cal.App.4th 1455 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) (disapproved portion re dismissal overriding DJF limits in certain contexts)
- In re N.D., 167 Cal.App.4th 885 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (realignment context; DJF eligibility considerations)
- In re J.L., 168 Cal.App.4th 43 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (disposition of multi-petition offenses and DJF eligibility)
- In re M.B., 174 Cal.App.4th 1472 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) (discussion of 733(c) vs. 111/probation procedures)
- In re D.J., 185 Cal.App.4th 278 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) (distinguishes 111 notice vs. 602 petition for DJF eligibility)
- In re Eddie M., 31 Cal.4th 480 (Cal. 2003) (procedural history on realignment and 111 notices)