|
In re Andrew G., no. A105329 (Cal.Ct.App.
1st Dist., Div. 5; Aug. 31, 2004) (Unpublished): CYA commitment
vacated as abuse of discretion. "[O]n this record,
we must conclude that there exists insubstantial evidence
that a CYA commitment would provide a likely benefit to
Andrew, or that the public safety required his placement
in a locked facility."
In re Dominic B., no.
A102749 (Cal.Ct.App. 1st Dist., Div. 3; April 29, 2004);
2004 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 4279; 2004 WL 909884 (Unpublished):
CYA commitment vacated on basis that there was no evidence
of probable benefit from a CYA commitment. The minor had
previously been rejected by CYA on the basis that CYA did
not have the programs to satisfy the minor needs and there
was no evidence in the record that CYA could meet his needs:
When
ordering Dominic to CYA, the court had neither an assessment
of Dominic's particular needs in front of it that indicated
he would be benefited by commitment to CYA, nor any evidence
that CYA could adequately address his particular needs.
All the court had in this respect was a probation report
reflecting that Dominic had ongoing mental health needs,
a letter from CYA stating that it could not meet those
needs, and the report we have just described, which at
best is evidence that CYA is ill-equipped to help minors
with mental health needs.
In
re Joshua H., no. A098264 (Cal.Ct.App. 1st Dist.,
Div. 2; Oct. 1, 2003 (Unpublished): trial counsel was ineffective
in failing to object to CYA commitment; juvenile court failed
to explore whether there were adequate alternatives to CYA;
remanded: "On remand, we direct the juvenile court
to further consider the availability and appropriateness
of alternative placements to address Joshua's rehabilitative
needs, bearing in mind his time already served at CYA."
In re Roy F., no. F038762
(Cal.Ct.App. 5th Dist.; May 23, 2002), 2002 WL 1046031 (Unpublished):
(insubstantial evidence supported CYA commitment--less restrictive
alternative available and probable benefit not shown).
|
|
In re J.L., no. A106464 (Cal.Ct.App. 1st
Dist., Div. 4; Apr. 12, 2005) (Unpublished): amendment "abrogate[d]
the existing rule that a juvenile court had no discretion
to fix a CYA confinement term lower than the statutory maximum
for an adult." Remanded to juvenile court to exercise
discretion.
In
re Carlos E. (April 1, 2005, F045287) ___ Cal.App.4th
___ [2005 WL 737525] (5th Dist.): "in light of the
present language of section 731, the maximum term of a minor's
confinement must be discretionarily determined by the juvenile
court based on the facts and circumstances placing the minor
before the court, not to exceed the maximum time prescribed
by adult sentencing law."
In re Sean W., (March 28, 2005, A107500)
___ Cal.App.4th ___ [2005 WL 704095] (1st Dist., Div. 2):
juvenile court's failure to exercise discretion under section
731(b) requires remand; rejects Attorney General's waiver
argument.
|
