The juvenile court granted appellant’s initial petition to seal his juvenile records under WIC 781. But when appellant filed another petition, this time listing additional agencies that had access to his records yet were not listed in the initial petition or sealing order, the court denied the petition on the ground that it lacked the authority to grant a subsequent petition. The Court of Appeal reversed, reasoning that WIC 781 does not bar a subsequent petition, and that where “a rehabilitated juvenile offender is eligible for WIC 781 relief, no purpose is served by permanently barring them from correcting an omission in the initial petition.”
Victory Categories: Delinquency
In light of recent amendments to WIC 707 (AB 2361), the Court of Appeal held that the minor was entitled to a new juvenile transfer hearing. At the time of the minor’s initial hearing, the juvenile court applied the former preponderance of the evidence standard (as opposed to the now required clear and convincing evidence standard) and directed its analysis to whether “transfer[ ] is appropriate,” not whether the minor was “amenable to rehabilitation while under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court,” as is required under amended WIC 707. Relying on In re F.M. (2023) 14 Cal.5th 701, the Court further found that remand was necessary because applying Watson would be inappropriate, as it would require the Court to speculate as to how the juvenile court might apply the new legal standards.
In light of recent amendments to WIC 707 (AB 2361), the Court of Appeal held that the minor was entitled to a new juvenile transfer hearing. At the time of the minor’s initial hearing, the juvenile court applied the former preponderance of the evidence standard (as opposed to the now required clear and convincing evidence standard) and directed its analysis to whether “transfer[ ] is appropriate,” not whether the minor was “amenable to rehabilitation while under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court,” as is required under amended WIC 707. Relying on In re F.M. (2023) 14 Cal.5th 701, the Court further found that remand was necessary because applying Watson‘s harmless error analysis would be inappropriate, as it would require the Court to speculate as to how the juvenile court might apply the new legal standards.
The Court of Appeal held that the juvenile court erred by failing to declare whether the minor’s offense (carrying a loaded firearm in public (PC 25850)) was a misdemeanor or a felony, as required under W&I 702.
The Court of Appeal held that the juvenile court erred by determining the minor’s offense, assault with a deadly weapon with force likely to produce bodily injury, was not a category 5 offense (requiring an 18-month baseline term), but rather a category 4 offense (requiring a baseline term of two years) based on other offenses that were not adjudicated. Additionally, the Court remanded the case to allow the juvenile court to exercise its new discretion under amended WIC 875 in setting the maximum term of confinement.
The Court of Appeal reversed the juvenile court’s WIC 241.1 order subjecting the minor to delinquency jurisdiction under WIC 602. The Court found that the juvenile court abused its discretion in ruling the minor did not meet any WIC 300 criteria because the evidence showed the minor had been sexually abused by “a member of [his] household,” and that his parents should have known he was in danger of sexual abuse. The court remanded the matter for the juvenile court to exercise its discretion to determine whether dependency or delinquency jurisdiction would best serve the minor’s interests and the protection of society.
In accordance with People Delgado (2022) 78 Cal.App.5th 95, the Court of Appeal reversed the trial court order denying appellant’s request for a Franklin hearing. The Court found that appellant is entitled to a make a record of youth-related factors for his future parole hearing under PC 3041.5.
Pursuant to WIC 241.1(a), when a minor qualifies as both a dependent and a ward of the juvenile court, all the attorneys of record must be notified of the date of the disposition hearing, where the court will determine which status is appropriate, and provided a copy of the WIC 241.1 report in which the probation department and child welfare services provided their recommendations, and they must be given an opportunity to be heard at the hearing. The Court of Appeal reversed the juvenile court’s determination under WIC 241.1 declaring the minor a ward of the court and terminating dependency jurisdiction because the record did not show that the minor’s dependency attorney was given the requisite notice.
Appellant, along with four others, stole $17,000 worth of leggings from Lululemon that were recovered in perfect condition within an hour of the theft. The Court of Appeal reversed the victim restitution award, finding that the trial court abused its discretion by awarding restitution for the full retail price of the items because: (1) substantial evidence did not support that the items could not be resold for full value; and (2) even if substantial evidence supported the determination of an economic loss, the proper valuation for the items was their wholesale, rather than retail, value.
[Published Opinion] The juvenile court granted appellant’s initial petition to seal his juvenile records under WIC 781. But when appellant filed another petition, this time listing additional agencies that had access to his records yet were not listed in the initial petition or sealing order, the court denied the petition on the ground that it lacked the authority to grant a subsequent petition. The Court of Appeal reversed, reasoning that WIC 781 does not bar a subsequent petition, and that where “a rehabilitated juvenile offender is eligible for WIC 781 relief, no purpose is served by permanently barring them from correcting an omission in the initial petition.”