Super. Ct. No. JJD063882; JV119100
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Raye , J.
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
The sole issue in this appeal is whether minor C.G. was statutorily eligible for deferred entry of judgment (DEJ). The probation department and the juvenile court correctly concluded that he was not. We affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In April 2009 the minor stole two bottles of alcohol from a store in Tulare County. He fled on foot from pursuing officers. In an attempt to detain the minor, an officer was injured and required medical attention.
In May 2009 the Tulare County District Attorney filed a petition alleging that the 17-year-old minor came within the provisions of Welfare and Institutions Code section 602*fn1 in that he committed second degree commercial burglary (Pen. Code, §§ 459, 460, subd. (b)) and misdemeanor resisting a peace officer (Pen. Code, § 148, subd. (a)(1)). The district attorney also filed a determination of eligibility for DEJ (form JV-750), which indicated it was "unknown" whether the minor had "previously been declared a ward of the court based on a finding that the minor committed a felony" and "unknown" whether the minor had a probation history. A handwritten notation at the bottom of the form indicated that the "[minor] is from Sacramento and has had an adjudication for PC 422--unknown if charge was a felony or mis[demeanor]."
Following the determination of eligibility form is another form, "Explanation of Deferred Entry of Judgment--Welfare and Institutions Code Section [sic] 790-795." Under the heading "Role of Prosecuting Attorney," the form indicates that a minor is ineligible for DEJ if "[t]he minor's record indicates that Probation has been revoked without thereafter being completed."
At a contested jurisdiction hearing in May 2009 the juvenile court found beyond a reasonable doubt that the petition's allegations were true. Because the minor resided in Sacramento County, the case was transferred there for disposition.
In June 2009 the Sacramento County Probation Department filed a social study report indicating that the minor was not eligible for DEJ because he had violated probation in May 2005. (§ 790, subd. (a)(4).)
The report shows that in February 2005 the minor appeared in court on a charge of misdemeanor battery on school grounds. The minor admitted the allegation and was placed on informal probation pursuant to section 654.2 with 60 days of home supervision.
The report shows that in April 2005 the minor appeared in court on a subsequent petition alleging misdemeanor unlawful possession of ammunition. The minor admitted the allegation; the previous charge of battery on school property, which had been held in abeyance pursuant to section 654.2, was found true. This time, the minor was placed on six months' court probation pursuant to section 725, subdivision (a).
The report shows that two weeks later a petition was filed alleging that the minor had violated his probation by being absent from school, being suspended from school for fighting, and by leaving home without permission. The minor admitted that he had been suspended for fighting. In May 2005 he was adjudged a ward and was committed to the youth center. From the probation report's comment that the minor had been ...