Delinquency Case Law

In re Anthony B. (Dec. 19, 2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 677 [128 Cal.Rptr.2d 349]. Court of Appeal, First District, Division 4.

The juvenile court placed the youth on informal probation, but it later determined that the youth had not fulfilled conditions of probation and set aside the order. The juvenile court ultimately sustained the allegations of the petition and declared the youth a ward of the court. A petition had been filed against the youth under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, alleging that the youth engaged in robbery and receiving stolen property through his participation in taking a bicycle from an eight-year old victim by means of force or fear. Rather than adjudicating the youth, the juvenile court placed the youth on informal probation pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 654.2. One year later the juvenile court set aside the youth’s placement on informal probation because the youth had not fulfilled the conditions of probation. The juvenile court then sustained the allegations of the section 602 petition and declared the youth a ward of the court. The youth appealed the juvenile court’s decision, arguing that the juvenile court did not have jurisdiction to resume adjudicatory proceedings on the one-year anniversary date of the filing of the petition according to the 12- month limitation set in section 654.2

The Court of Appeal affirmed the juvenile court’s decision and held that resumption of adjudicatory proceedings against the youth on the one-year anniversary date of the petition to declare the youth a ward of the court satisfied the section 654.2 requirement that it occur “no later than 12 months from the date the petition was filed.” The appellate court reasoned that, according to the Code of Civil Procedure section 12, the time period for any act provided by law is to be computed by excluding the first day and including the last, unless the last day is a holiday. The appellate court held that, absent a compelling reason for departure, this rule of civil procedure governs calculation of all statutorily prescribed periods. Therefore, the appellate court concluded that resumption of the adjudicatory proceedings on the one-year anniversary of the date of the petition is timely according to Welfare and Institutions Code section 654.2 and Code of Civil Procedure section 12 because the time calculation excludes the first day and includes the last day of the 12-month period. Furthermore, the appellate court distinguished this case from that of Michael D. (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1280, which indicated that to compute the time period in a statute both the first and last day of the period should be included. The appellate court held that the rule in Michael D. was not applicable to the present case because Michael D. involved the interpretation of Welfare and Institutions Code section 654 rather than section 654.2, and the decision did not mention the general rule or offer a compelling reason to depart from it. Therefore, the appellate court affirmed the juvenile court’s decision and held that the resumption of the adjudicatory proceedings against the youth was timely.