222 Cal. App. 4th 187
Cal. Ct. App.2013Background
- Travis J., a juvenile with prior wardship history, admitted to two felonies (assault with a semiautomatic firearm and carrying a concealed firearm) as part of a plea agreement that included a stipulated commitment to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Division of Juvenile Facilities (DJJ).
- In exchange for the plea and DJJ stipulation, the People dismissed multiple felony counts, probation violation petitions, and withdrew fitness-to-try motions.
- At disposition the juvenile court imposed a mitigated maximum term of confinement (MTC) of three years at DJJ, waived all pre‑disposition custody credits, ordered restitution to two victims ($850 to Davis; $1,025 to Goldsmith), and imposed probation conditions.
- Travis appealed, arguing (1) a juvenile may not stipulate to DJJ commitment and the case should be remanded to consider less restrictive alternatives, (2) the MTC was improperly set and credits improperly waived, (3) probation conditions were improper while committed to DJJ, and (4) the restitution award to Davis lacked evidentiary support.
- The People conceded the probation conditions were improper. The court affirmed the DJJ commitment and MTC, struck the probation conditions, reversed the restitution award to Davis for lack of substantial evidence, and remanded for a restitution hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Travis) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Legality of stipulated DJJ commitment | Stipulation to DJJ is enforceable as part of a juvenile plea; court retains discretion to reject plea if inappropriate | Stipulated DJJ commitment is illegal: violates statutes, separation of powers, and juveniles cannot validly plea-bargain to disposition given developmental limits | Court declined to endorse a categorical ban; ruled plea/stipulation permissible and enforceable but court retains sentencing discretion; Travis forfeited claim but court addressed merits and affirmed commitment |
| 2) Need to consider less restrictive alternatives / abuse of discretion in commitment | Juvenile court independently considered facts, weighed alternatives, and found DJJ appropriate | Court failed to exercise true dispositional discretion; Glen Mills School was a viable less-restrictive alternative | Substantial evidence supported the court’s findings; no abuse of discretion; remand unnecessary |
| 3) MTC setting and waiver of custodial credits | MTC and waiver were part of negotiated disposition and court exercised discretion as required | Court failed to articulate consideration of facts under §731(c); waiver of credits invalid | Court found waiver knowing and valid; juvenile court adequately exercised discretion in setting three-year MTC; claim forfeited when not objected to below |
| 4) Probation conditions during DJJ commitment | Conditions included in disposition but court may impose collateral probation terms | Probation conditions improper because DJJ commitment removes juvenile court’s supervisory authority | People conceded; appellate court ordered discretionary probation conditions stricken |
| 5) Restitution to Davis ($850) | Probation report and victim statements supported restitution request | Award unsupported: no proof of repair/replacement costs or lost wages; court relied on speculation | Reversed and remanded — restitution to Davis not supported by substantial evidence; trial court abused discretion and must hold further hearing to determine economic loss |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Sheena K., 40 Cal.4th 875 (juvenile plea preservation and forfeiture principles) (discussing preservation of sentencing claims)
- In re Julian R., 47 Cal.4th 487 (juvenile court discretion in setting MTC and review standards) (presumption that trial court followed law and no oral statement required)
- In re Uriah R., 70 Cal.App.4th 1152 (juvenile waivers and plea bargains) (juveniles can knowingly waive rights and accept plea bargains including stipulated dispositions)
- In re Ricardo C., 220 Cal.App.4th 688 (enforcing plea bargain dispositions and court’s power to reject plea-based placements) (court may withdraw approval if disposition inconsistent with its duties)
- Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (U.S. 2010) (juvenile brain development and limits on life‑without‑parole for nonhomicide offenders)
- Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (U.S. 2012) (juvenile sentencing considerations and developmental differences)
- People v. Miller, 202 Cal.App.4th 1450 (plea‑bargain contractual principles) (defendant may not keep favorable plea terms while rejecting unfavorable ones)