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 G.F.

California Court of Appeals, Second District, Sixth Division

May 30, 2017

In re G.F., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
v.
G.F., Defendant and Appellant THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,

         As modified June 6, 2017.

          Superior Court County of Ventura, No. 2015035760, Kevin J. McGee, Judge.

Page 2

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 3

         COUNSEL

         Stephen P. Lipson, Ventura County Public Defender, Michael C. McMahon, Chief Deputy Public Defender and William Quest, Deputy Public Defender, for Defendant and Appellant.

         Xavier Becerra and Kamala D. Harris, Attorneys General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Assistant Attorney General, Paul M. Roadarmel, Jr., and Rene Judkiewicz, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

         Gilbert, P. J., and Tangeman, J., concurring.

          OPINION

          [218 Cal.Rptr.3d 272] PERREN, J.

          Appellant G.F., a minor, was the subject of a delinquency petition alleging that he possessed a sharpened letter opener on school grounds. (Pen. Code, § 626.10, subd. (a); Welf. & Inst. Code,[1] § 602.) Prior to arraignment, the court granted the prosecution's motion to dismiss the petition and proceed with an informal program of supervision " pursuant to [section] 654." After the probation department verified that appellant had successfully completed all that was required of him, he moved to have the records pertaining to his dismissed petition sealed under section 786. The prosecution opposed the motion and the trial court denied it.

         We conclude appellant is entitled to have his records sealed under section 786. The statute, as relevant here, is intended to apply to minors, like appellant, who successfully complete an informal program of supervision after a delinquency petition has been filed against them. Although section 786 is intended to apply to minors who have a pending delinquency petition and have completed a program of supervision [218 Cal.Rptr.3d 273] under section 654.2 rather than section 654, this is only so because the latter form of supervision is supposed

Page 4

to be undertaken in lieu of filing a petition. Once a petition has been filed, as it was here, the minor's program of supervision is governed by section 654.2, not section 654. The People, having created the conundrum by urging the court to prematurely dismiss appellant's petition " pursuant to [section] ...


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.