Delinquency Case Law

In re Brian K. (Oct. 24, 2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 39 [126 Cal.Rptr.2d 580]. Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 6.

The juvenile court held that the youth had violated his probation and imposed a $150 fine under Welfare and Institutions Code section 777. The district attorney had filed a section 602 petition alleging that the youth had committed a misdemeanor petty theft. The youth admitted to the allegations of the petition, and 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. The district attorney then filed a section 777 notice alleging that the youth had violated probation by being truant from school, possessing a marijuana pipe, and using marijuana. The juvenile court declared the youth a ward of the court and permitted him to reside with his mother. During the hearing, the juvenile court stated that it would impose a fine of $150, which was not mentioned in the district attorney’s notice. The juvenile court imposed the fine under section 777, reasoning that section 777 deals with the consequences to be imposed when the court finds that a youth has violated the terms of his or her probation. The juvenile court held that section 777 provided the court with the inherent or implied authority to impose greater penalties on the youth such as removal from the home and placement in custody. The youth appealed the juvenile court’s decision, arguing that the court had no express statutory authority to impose fines upon him under section 777 and that the $150 fine violated his right to due process because it was not mentioned in the section 777 notice.

The Court of Appeal reversed and remanded the decision of the juvenile court, indicating that the juvenile court’s order imposing a fine should be stricken and the order finding a violation of probation should be affirmed. The appellate court also held that the trial court may exercise its discretion as it sees fit to impose a fine under appropriate statutory provisions. The appellate court rejected the youth’s due process argument, indicating that the youth had had actual notice of the juvenile court’s intent to impose a fine as well as a full opportunity to be heard and raise any challenges to the fine. The appellate court further indicated that while section 777 does not expressly mention fines, the juvenile court in section 777 proceedings may impose fines pursuant to other statutes that authorize them where the amount does not exceed the statutory minimum. The appellate court stated that sections 730.5, 730.6, and 775 provide some examples of statutes that can be used by juvenile courts to impose fines in a section 777 proceeding. Thus, the appellate court held that while section 777 by itself does not authorize the imposition of fines, the juvenile court has the authority to impose fines in a section 777 proceeding pursuant to other statutory provisions and on remand may exercise its discretion to impose a fine under an applicable statute.