35 Cal. App. 5th 999
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2019Background
- J.M., a juvenile, admitted a felony count of torture and was declared a ward under Welf. & Inst. Code § 602 and committed to DJJ for a maximum of seven years with 206 days’ custody credit.
- On appeal and by habeas petition, J.M. challenged the voluntariness of her admission, ineffective assistance of counsel, and the juvenile court’s findings and discretionary conditions. She also sought remand for consideration of pretrial mental health diversion under Penal Code §§ 1001.35–1001.36.
- The appellate court granted supplemental briefing on whether the adult mental health diversion law applies to juveniles in delinquency proceedings and whether excluding juveniles violates equal protection.
- The court concluded Penal Code §§ 1001.35–1001.36 do not apply to juvenile delinquency proceedings and that exclusion does not violate equal protection under the rational-basis standard.
- The court struck a registration fee and discretionary probation conditions from the disposition, amended a possession prohibition from “weapon” to “firearm,” directed clerical corrections, affirmed the disposition otherwise, and denied the habeas petition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Penal Code §§ 1001.35–1001.36 (mental health diversion) apply to juveniles in delinquency proceedings | J.M.: The statutes are ameliorative and should apply to juveniles on appeal; she meets eligibility criteria | People: Statutes are adult criminal-law provisions, enacted after disposition, and do not apply to juvenile proceedings | Held: Statutes do not apply to juveniles not charged as adults; juvenile statutory scheme governs and applying Penal Code diversion would conflict with juvenile law |
| Whether excluding juveniles from the mental health diversion statute violates equal protection | J.M.: Exclusion is arbitrary and results in harsher punishment for juveniles vs. adults; asserts fundamental liberty interest | People: Different juvenile/adult systems and rehabilitative aims justify different treatment | Held: No equal protection violation under rational-basis review; legislative distinctions between systems are rational |
| Whether adult criminal terminology in diversion statutes forecloses juvenile applicability (Jovan B. argument) | J.M.: Jovan B. allows adult procedural terms to be applied to juveniles where context so indicates | People: Context and juvenile statutory scheme show exclusion | Held: Use of adult terminology alone is not dispositive; broader statutory context and juvenile-specific provisions counsel against applying the Penal Code diversion to juveniles |
| Relief and clerical/condition corrections on disposition | J.M.: Seeks remand for diversion consideration and challenges certain conditions/fees | People: Oppose diversion and defend disposition | Held: Denied remand for diversion; struck registration fee and discretionary probation conditions; amended possession prohibition to "firearm"; affirmed disposition otherwise; habeas denied |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Jovan B., 6 Cal.4th 801 (Cal. 1993) (adult procedural terminology in a Penal Code provision does not alone decide applicability to juveniles)
- In re Derrick B., 39 Cal.4th 535 (Cal. 2006) (statutory context may preclude importing adult criminal provisions into juvenile proceedings)
- In re M.S., 32 Cal.App.5th 1177 (Cal. Ct. App. 2019) (majority held mental health diversion statute does not apply to juvenile cases)
- People v. Olivas, 17 Cal.3d 236 (Cal. 1976) (statute triggering stricter juvenile confinement implicated fundamental liberty and strict scrutiny in narrow circumstances)
- People v. Wilkinson, 33 Cal.4th 821 (Cal. 2005) (clarifies narrow scope of Olivas; strict scrutiny not automatically triggered by differences between juvenile and adult schemes)
- In re Carlos J., 22 Cal.App.5th 1 (Cal. Ct. App. 2018) (juvenile court must consider a broad range of information to determine rehabilitative measures)