192 Cal. App. 4th 670
Cal. Ct. App.2011Background
- Appellant Joshua S. appeals through a writ of review from juvenile court probation-revocation orders.
- Two DEJ-eligibility petitions existed: San Francisco case for possession of cocaine base for sale and false representation to a peace officer; Alameda/Contra Costa cases involved marijuana offenses and a firearm count.
- Prosecutor filed DEJ determinations (JV-750) and notices (JV-751) in San Francisco and Alameda, but the court did not explicitly conduct a DEJ suitability finding as required.
- Appellant initially contested by moving to suppress evidence; after denial, he admitted a reduced charge in San Francisco case and did not pursue suppression in Alameda.
- Cases were consolidated for disposition; the juvenile court ultimately committed appellant to custody with an 90-day parole period and credited custody time.
- Court remands to determine whether DEJ should be granted and whether the cannabis offense is a misdemeanor or felony.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| DEJ eligibility determination proper? | S.F. case: prosecutor failed to determine DEJ eligibility and provide notice. | Respondent contends DEJ procedures were satisfied by forms filed and notices. | Remanded to determine DEJ eligibility and suitability. |
| Proper exercise of DEJ discretion? | Court failed to exercise discretion regarding DEJ after eligibility. | Kenneth J./Usef S. limit DEJ when minor contests; here minor did not contest after suppression denial. | Remanded to exercise discretion on DEJ suitability. |
| Cannabis offense characterization (felony vs misdemeanor)? | Need a court finding on offense level for cannabis possession. | Proceedings and plea may affect labeling; no final determination made yet. | Remanded to determine whether cannabis possession is a misdemeanor or felony. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Kenneth J., 158 Cal.App.4th 973 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 2008) (prosecutor must determine DEJ eligibility; court must follow procedures)
- In re Luis B., 142 Cal.App.4th 1117 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 2006) (court must exercise discretion after eligibility; cannot deny DEJ without benefit finding)
- Martha C. v. Superior Court, 108 Cal.App.4th 556 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 2003) (strong preference for rehabilitation and limits on denial of DEJ)
- In re A.I., 176 Cal.App.4th 1435 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 2009) (minor may litigate suppression and later accept DEJ; DEJ not merely an offer)
- In re Usef S., 160 Cal.App.4th 276 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 2008) (DEJ hearing not required where minor contests; otherwise follow Kenneth J.)
- In re T.J., 185 Cal.App.4th 1504 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 2010) (limits on when DEJ is available when minor contests some allegations)
- Morse v. Municipal Court, 13 Cal.3d 149 (Cal. Supreme Court 1974) (diversion context; supports ability to litigate suppression before DEJ)
- In re A.I., 176 Cal.App.4th 1435 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 2009) (DEJ entitlements not merely prosecutorial 'offer' halted by suppression outcome)