Delinquency Case Law

In re Marcus A. (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 423 [109 Cal.Rptr.2d 919]. Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division 2.

The juvenile court committed a child to the California Youth Authority (CYA).

The child was initially detained in juvenile hall for the commission of grand theft at age 13. He was put on probation and released to the custody of his aunt. After he allegedly violated his probation by removing the electronic monitoring device, running away from home, and testing positive for marijuana, the probation department sought to have him placed in a more restrictive setting. Another wardship petition was filed, and the child admitted to violating Penal Code section 496 (receiving stolen property). Approximately a year later, the district attorney filed another petition against the child for violating section 245(a)(1) (assault by means likely to produce great bodily injury). The child admitted to the charge and was maintained in juvenile hall. The child's probation officer filed a notice to initiate a Welfare and Institutions Code section 777 proceeding for noncompliance with probation because the child had violated the dress code of the facility and had cigarettes. The juvenile court found that the child had not violated the dress code but had been in possession of cigarettes. The child's attorney objected to the testimony about the cigarettes and argued that it was a separate crime that could not be raised under section 777. The juvenile court admitted the testimony and committed the child to CYA for a maximum period of five years. The child appealed.

The Court of Appeal reversed the decision of the juvenile court. The child argued that the juvenile court had erred when it committed him to CYA for his violation of probation, and the People agreed. Section 777 provides for the removal of a child to a more restrictive placement. Since the passage of Proposition 21, the statute has applied only to noncriminal violations of probation. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 777(a)(2).) The dress code violation was properly raised at the hearing, but those allegations were found untrue. The possession of cigarettes under the age of 18 is a crime under Penal Code section 308(b), and this probation violation should not have been pursued in the 777 proceeding. The appellate court found this error to be prejudicial and reversed the decision of the juvenile court.