(Super. Ct. Nos. 10JQ00457 & 11JQ00485)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Mauro , 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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 minors admitted guilt on one count of rape or sexual penetration by force against the will of the victim while acting in concert with another person. Following an evidentiary hearing on the minors' subsequent motions to withdraw their admissions based on learning disabilities and ineffective assistance, the juvenile court denied their motions to withdraw the admissions and committed the minors to the Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) for the maximum period of nine years.
The minors now contend (1) although delinquency adjudications are traditionally made without a jury trial, the minors have a federal due process right to a jury trial in this case due to the lifetime residency restrictions; and (2) the juvenile court failed to advise the minors that they would be subject to sex offender registration and residency restrictions for life.
We conclude the minors do not have a right to a jury trial, and they fail to show prejudice resulting from improper advisement. We will affirm the judgment.
Amended petitions filed under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, subdivision (a), alleged that the minor I.V., age 17, and his twin brother (whose initials are also I.V.), committed eight sexual offenses against E.A., who was 16 years old. The minors admitted one count of rape or sexual penetration by force against the will of the victim while acting in concert with another person (Pen. Code, § 264.1*fn1 -- count VIII) in exchange for dismissal of seven counts charging other sexual offenses.
The minors subsequently retained private counsel and filed motions to withdraw their admissions. The motions claimed that due to the minors' learning disabilities, and also due to ineffective assistance by their former attorneys, the minors did not waive their constitutional rights in a knowing and intelligent manner and did not understand what they admitted or the consequences of their admissions. The minors also claimed that their former counsel failed to conduct an adequate investigation of their case.
At the hearing on their motions, the minors called witnesses, including their former attorneys, presented documentary evidence, and testified themselves. The former attorneys testified that they informed the minors they would be required to register as sex offenders. The minors testified to the contrary. There was no testimony about statements to the minors concerning the duration of the registration requirements or the residency restrictions applicable to registered sex offenders. The juvenile court denied the minors' motions.
The juvenile court sustained the amended petitions for violations of section 264.1 and committed the minors to the DJJ for nine years, the maximum time each minor could be confined in secured custody for a violation of section 264.1. The period of commitment was actually longer for one of the minors due to a term imposed in a prior juvenile proceeding.