Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

In re C.Z.

California Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Second Division

December 11, 2013

IN RE C.Z., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
v.
C.Z., Defendant and Appellant. The People, Plaintiff and Respondent,

APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. F. Paul Dickerson III, Judge. Affirmed. (Super.Ct.No. SWJ009440)

Page 1498

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 1499

COUNSEL

Christopher Love, Los Angeles, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

[165 Cal.Rptr.3d 410] Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland and Kathryn Kirschbaum, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

OPINION

RICHLI, J.

Page 1500

In connection with a previous petition, minor C.Z. was placed on informal supervision (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 654, 654.2); later, however, his informal supervision was revoked.

In connection with the present petition, the juvenile court ruled that the minor was not eligible [165 Cal.Rptr.3d 411] for deferred entry of judgment (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 790) because his informal supervision had previously been revoked. It relied on Welfare and Institutions Code section 790, subdivision (a)(4), which provides that a minor is eligible for deferred entry of judgment only if " [t]he minor's record does not indicate that probation has ever been revoked without being completed."

The minor appeals, contending that informal supervision is not probation. He argues (among other things) that if informal supervision is probation, then it violates due process, because it does not require either an adjudication or admission of guilt.

We will hold that, as a matter of statutory construction, the Legislature intended " probation," as used in Welfare and Institutions Code section 790, subdivision (a)(4), to include informal supervision. We will further hold that this construction does not render informal supervision unconstitutional. Accordingly, we will affirm.

I

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In July 2009, an initial petition was filed alleging resisting an officer. (Pen.Code, § 148, subd. (a)(1).) In August 2009, the minor was placed on informal supervision pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code sections 654 and 654.2.

Page 1501

In December 2009, the People filed a request to revoke informal supervision, based on the minor's failure to comply with the conditions.

Meanwhile, in January 2010, a second petition was filed alleging shoplifting. (Pen.Code, § 490.5, subd. (a).) In March 2010, the juvenile court revoked the minor's informal supervision; it then dismissed the first petition. The minor admitted the allegations of the second petition. The juvenile court made a wardship adjudication and placed the minor on formal probation for six months under Welfare and Institutions Code section 725, subdivision (a).

In June, 2012, a third petition was filed alleging resisting an executive officer. (Pen.Code, § 69.) At the initial hearing, the juvenile court indicated that it was considering deferred entry of judgment.

At the next hearing, the People objected that the juvenile court could not grant deferred entry of judgment. The juvenile ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.