California Court of Appeals, First District, First Division
In re I.S., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
I.S., Defendant and Appellant
Superior Court of San Francisco City and County, No.
JW15-6162, Braden C. Woods, Judge.
Page 518
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
Page 519
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
Page 520
COUNSEL
Maggie
Shrout, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for
Defendant and Appellant.
Kamala
D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler and Jeffrey M.
Laurence, Assistant Attorneys General, Arthur P. Beever and
Christina Vom Saal, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff
and Respondent.
Opinion
by Banke, J., with Humes, P. J., and Margulies, J.,
concurring.
OPINION
[211
Cal.Rptr.3d 464] BANKE, J.
The
question before us is whether a juvenile court that accepts
transfer of an entire delinquency case from another county
(Welf. & Inst. Code, § 750), may rule on a
Proposition 47 petition to recall the disposition made by the
transferor county. Defendant maintains section 750 of the
Welfare and Institutions Code confers such power. The People
maintain Proposition 47, and specifically the language of
Penal Code section 1170.18, subdivision (a), allows only the
transferor court to recall a disposition order. We conclude a
transferee juvenile court has the power to rule on a recall
petition and therefore reverse the juvenile court's
denial of defendant's petition. We also modify one of
defendant's probation conditions.
Background
In late
2013, in Contra Costa County Juvenile Court, defendant
pleaded no contest to felony theft (Pen. Code, § 487,
subd. (c)), and the court declared him a ward of the state.
About a year later, a new petition alleged defendant
unlawfully possessed a firearm (Pen. Code, § 29610), and
he again pleaded no contest to a misdemeanor variant of the
charge.
The
following year, and just prior to a disposition hearing on
the new charge, defendant's case was transferred to the
San Francisco Juvenile Court pursuant to Welfare and
Institutions Code section 750 because his family had moved.
The San Francisco Juvenile Court re-declared defendant a
ward, chose to place him with his mother, reimposed probation
conditions, and kept intact orders of the transferor court.
A few
days later, defendant filed a Proposition 47 petition in the
San Francisco Juvenile Court to reduce his felony theft
offense to misdemeanor larceny. The San Francisco court
denied his petition without prejudice, ruling only the Contra
...