Opinion
In а notice filed pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 777, the juvenile court found that the minor Brian K. violated his probation and it imposed a $150 fine.
1
We conclude, among other things, that section 777 by itself does not authorize the imposition of fines. But the court does have authority to impose fines in a section 777 proceeding pursuant
Facts
The district attorney filed a section 602 petition alleging that Brian K., a minor, committed misdemeanor petty theft. (Pen. Code, § 484, subd. (a).) Brian K. admitted the allegatiоns of the petition. The juvenile court placed him on probation without wardship for a period not to exceed six months and ordered him to pay a $50 restitution fine.
At the hearing, the court stated it also would impose a fine. The fine was not mentioned in the district attorney’s notice. Brian K.’s counsel objected on the ground there is no express statutory authority for a fine. The court accepted the district attorney’s position that it had inherent or implied authority to impose fines in section 777 proceedings and needed no express authority. Thе court imposed a fine in the amount of $150 and stated: “Section 777 deals with the consequences to be imposed when the Court finds that a minor has violated the terms of his or her probation. It specifically allows the Court to impose greater penalties on the minor by removal from the home . . . and placement in custody .... [¶] It would be inappropriate ... for the Court to determine that the only consequences available for violations of probation are removal .... It would be equally inappropriate for the Court to tаke the position that it has no power to impose any lesser consequence than removal for a probation violation.”
Discussion
I. Due Process Notice
Brian K. contends that the $150 fine was not mentionеd in the section
111
notice and therefore the court violated his right to due process. The Attorney General concedes that the request for a fine was not in the notice. But hе correctly notes that the court gave the parties the opportunity to argue and subsequently brief the issue of the court’s authority to impose a fine. Brian K. took advantage of that opportunity. But he did not raise a due process objection at either the section
111
proceeding or in his supplemental trial brief. His only objection to the fine wаs that there was no statutory authority to impose one. Because Brian K. did not raise a due process objection in the trial court, he may not raise it for the first time on apрeal.
(People v. Marshall
(1990)
Moreover, the essence of due process is actual notice and a “meaningful opportunity” to be heard.
(In re Donnell L.
(1989)
II. Authority to Impose Fines in Section 777 Proceedings
The Attorney General and Brian K. agree that the Legislature did not expressly mention a fine in section 111. The Attorney General contends, however, that the authority for imposing a fine in a section 111 proceeding is in the broad language of section 730, 2 and in particular subdivision (b).
“ ‘ [T]he objective of statutory interpretation is to ascertain and effectuate legislativе intent. [Citations.] In determining intent, we look first to the words themselves. [Citations.] When the language is clear and unambiguous, there is no need for construction.’ ”
(People
v.
Gangemi
(1993)
Proceedings under section
111,
however, are related to the original dispositional order that granted probation. Such proceedings, among other
things, allow the juvenile court to “change previous orders.”
(In re Paul R.
(1996)
Therefore, even though section 777 does not expressly mention fines, juvenile courts in section 777 proceedings may impose thеm pursuant to other statutes that authorize them where the amount does not exceed the statutory maximum. (See In re Paul R., supra, 42 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1588-1590 [court in § 777 proceeding could impose a felony restitution fine under the express authority of § 730.6, subd. (b) as long as it did not exceed the $1,000 statutory maximum].)
Section 730.5 also authorizes fines when a minor is adjudged a ward of the court and a person described in section 602. Section 730.6 authorizes a restitution fine in every case in which the minor comes within section 602. Because section 775 allows for a modification of any оrder the court previously made, the court in a section 777 proceeding may modify the fines it originally imposed under appropriate sections. Or in certain cases, a finе may
We reverse and remand so the trial court may exercise its discretion as it sees fit to impose a fine under appropriate statutory provisions. The order imposing the fine is stricken. In all other respects the order finding a violation of probation is affirmed.
Coffee, J., and Perren, J., concurred.
A petition for a rehearing was denied November 15, 2002, and appellant’s petition for review by the Supreme Court was denied January 15, 2003.
Notes
Unless otherwise indicated, аll further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code. A section 777 notice was once called a “Supplemental Petition.” Pursuant to amendment (Prop. 21, approved Mar. 7, 2000), it is now called a “Notice of Hearing.”
Section 111 provides in part: “An order changing or modifying a previous order by removing a minor from the physical custody of a parent, guаrdian, relative, or friend and directing placement in a foster home, or commitment to a private institution or commitment to a county institution, or an order changing or modifying a previous order by directing commitment to the Youth Authority shall be made only after a noticed hearing.”
Pursuant to rule 1433(c) of the California Rules of Court, a Notice of Hearing under section 111 shall contain the following:
“(1) The name of the child; [¶] (2) The date, time, and place of the hearing; [10 (3) The purpose and scope of the hearing; [¶] (4) A statement of the right of the child to be represented by counsel at the hearing and, if applicable, of the right to appoint counsel; and [¶] (5) A concise statement of the facts in support of the allegation.”
Section 730 providеs in part: “(a) When a minor is adjudged a ward of the court on the ground that he or she is a person described by Section 602, the court may order any of the types of treatment referrеd to in Section 727, and as an additional alternative, may commit the minor to a juvenile home, ranch, camp, or forestry camp. If there is no county juvenile home, ranch, camp, or forestry camp within the county, the court may commit the minor to the county juvenile hall, [¶] (b) When a ward described in subdivision (a) is placed under the supervision of the probation officer or committed to the care, custody, and control of the probation officer, the court may make any and all reasonable orders for the conduct of the ward including the requirement that the ward go to work and earn money for the support of his or her dependents or to effect reparation and in either case that the ward keep an account of his or her earnings and report the same to the probation officer and apply these earnings as directed by the court. The court may impоse and require any and all reasonable conditions that it may determine fitting and proper to the end that justice may be done and the reformation and rehabilitation of the ward enhanced.”