People v. Jonathan V. (In re Jonathan V.)
19 Cal. App. 5th 236
| Cal. Ct. App. 5th | 2018Background
- On Dec. 4, 2015, Jonathan V., then 15, was identified as participating in an armed robbery of four victims; he was later detained and charged in juvenile petition alleging robbery, firearm and gang enhancements.
- Jonathan was released to home detention, then to the community; at a Feb. 10, 2016 trial-setting conference the People orally requested a juvenile restraining order prohibiting contact with the victims.
- Defense counsel objected she had no prior notice and requested a hearing to prepare; the court overruled the objection and signed a two-year restraining order (form JV-255) effective Feb. 10, 2016–Feb. 10, 2018.
- The restraining order was not labeled or issued as a temporary order (JV-250) and thus far exceeded the 21–25 day limit for no-notice temporary orders under Welf. & Inst. Code § 213.5(c).
- The court relied on Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.630 to permit same-day oral application; the appellate court concluded the order required prior notice and a hearing under § 213.5(d) and due process.
Issues
| Issue | People's Argument | Jonathan's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the juvenile court could issue a two-year restraining order without prior notice or an evidentiary hearing | Rule 5.630 permits submitting an application without notice and issuing a temporary order; same-day oral request was adequate | § 213.5(d) requires notice and a hearing for a multi-year restraining order; same-day courtroom notice denied meaningful opportunity to be heard | Court reversed: two-year order required notice and hearing; issuance without them was error |
| Whether evidence supported the restraining order (substantial-evidence challenge) | People argued serious charges and risk justified the order | Jonathan argued insufficiency and lack of procedure to contest | Not reached: reversal on procedural grounds made merits review unnecessary |
Key Cases Cited
- Babalola v. Superior Court, 192 Cal.App.4th 948 (Cal. Ct. App.) (notice and opportunity to prepare required before protective order issuance)
- In re Large, 41 Cal.4th 538 (Cal. 2007) (notice and opportunity to be heard serve to present information affecting decision)
- People v. Martinez, 22 Cal.4th 106 (Cal. 2000) (CLETS entries and protective-order consequences explained)
- Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (U.S. 1972) (minimum due process protections in revocation proceedings)
- Olson v. Arnett, 113 Cal.App.3d 59 (Cal. Ct. App.) (distinguishing adequate notice where party had prior awareness)
- Isidora M. v. Silvino M., 239 Cal.App.4th 11 (Cal. Ct. App.) (due process requires sufficient time to prepare for impending hearing)