Opinion
S284330
06-12-2024
IN RE A.G.
B321717 Second Appellate District, Div. 5.
Petition for review denied
Liu, Groban, and Evans, JJ., are of the opinion the petition should be granted.
(See Dissenting Statement by Liu, J.)
Dissenting Statement
Liu, Justice
For the reasons ably explained in Presiding Justice Rubin's dissent, the circumstances surrounding A.G.'s plea raise serious questions as to whether his plea was voluntary. I would grant review.
The Legislature has made clear that the primary objectives of the juvenile justice system are rehabilitation and family reunification. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 202.) Detaining a minor in juvenile hall can compromise these objectives. Thus, a juvenile court "shall" order the release of a minor from custody unless the court finds specific facts warranting detention. (Id., § 635, subd. (a).) A juvenile court may not ignore this clear directive and withhold releasing a minor from detention until the minor enters a guilty or no contest plea. When the juvenile court abuses its authority in such a manner, the voluntariness of the minor's plea is dubious.
When the juvenile court initially ordered A.G.'s detention, it relied on a deficient detention report from the probation department. The court assured A.G. that it would base its ultimate detention decision on the upcoming pre-plea report. In that pre-plea report, the department changed its position and recommended A.G.'s release. Contrary to its previous assurances, and despite the department's revised recommendation, the juvenile court refused to reconsider its detention order on two more occasions, including immediately before A.G. entered his plea. At that point, A.G. had been confined for over three weeks.
At the hearings on June 30, 2022, and July 1, 2022, A.G.'s counsel stated their understanding that the court would release A.G. once he entered the plea. The court responded by disabusing counsel of the notion that the court was promising A.G.'s release upon entry of the no contest plea, and the court confirmed that counsel had not promised A.G. that he would be released upon entering a plea. When the pre-plea report was again brought to the court's attention on June 30, the court took a break to read the report. But when the hearing resumed on July 1, the court again denied release. At that point, A.G. entered his plea, and the court immediately ordered his release based on the pre-plea report. As the prosecutor observed, nothing had changed in the circumstances bearing on whether A.G. should be released; the court had become aware of the probation department's release recommendation beforeA.G. entered his plea. The only change was that A.G. had gone ahead and entered his plea; only at that point did the court grant his release.
Additional circumstances suggest that A.G.'s plea was not voluntary and was instead made to obtain release. A.G. received no benefit from the prosecutor for admitting the allegation of second degree robbery, a strike offense. The lack of a benefit to A.G. is particularly significant as the record indicates A.G. potentially had a strong defense, including facts in the police report and video evidence that his involvement was minimal. In addition, A.G. entered into the plea agreement after he had advised the court that he feared for his safety. Direct or indirect fear or threats are relevant considerations when assessing whether an individual's plea was coerced. A.G. and his counsel repeatedly raised those fears with the court. During an earlier hearing, A.G.'s counsel stated probation officers allowed children to fight at juvenile hall, and there were indications A.G. was being pressured to do so. The juvenile court's offer to move A.G. to another facility or house him separately is beside the point. Indeed, A.G.'s mother had arranged for A.G. to be moved within juvenile hall, but A.G. continued to experience threats of violence.
(I note that A.G. was detained at Barry J. Nidorf Juvenile Hall, one of two Los Angeles juvenile hall facilities that has been found unsuitable for detaining minors. (Ellis, L.A. County Has 2 Months to Fix Problems in Juvenile Hall - or Get Everyone Out. Again, L.A. Times (Feb. 15, 2024).) Numerous Los Angeles probation officers were recently placed on leave based on allegations of doing exactly what A.G.'s counsel reported - allowing or encouraging detained children to assault one another - and a video of such an incident has been released. (Queally & Ellis, Video Shows Staff Allowing Assault by Youths at Los Padrinos Juvenile Hall, L.A. Times (Apr. 12, 2024); Queally, Juvenile Hall Fight Videos Raise Question: Can L.A. County Probation Reports be Trusted?L.A. Times (May 30, 2024); see also County of Los Angeles Probation, LA County Probation Puts Four More Officers on Leave at Los Padrinos Juvenile Hall after Finding Additional Incidents of Youth-on-Youth Violence(Apr. 26, 2024) <https://probation.lacounty.gov/lacountyprobationputsfourmoreofficersonleaveatlospadrinos/> [as of June 12, 2024].))
Further, A.G. was 17 years old, was in ninth grade, and had no prior contact with the juvenile justice system. According to the probation department's reports, his mother said he was well- behaved at home, he had no gang associations, he had "a positive extended family," and his father had arranged for him to stay at his grandfather's house in Burbank upon release. It is a fair inference that A.G., realizing that the court was unwilling to release him despite these circumstances and the pre-plea report's recommendation, felt he had no option but to enter a no contest plea to obtain release.
The sequence of events in this case supports A.G.'s claim that after being detained for 24 days despite a pre-plea report recommending his release, he did not enter his plea voluntarily. Even after reading the report recommending A.G.'s release, the court inexplicably denied release until after A.G. entered his plea, even though nothing had changed. The upshot is that A.G. now has a strike offense, despite some evidence of his minimal involvement in the crime and no prior delinquency history. Because the trial court's refusal to release A.G. until he entered his plea raises serious questions as to whether the plea was voluntary, I would grant review.
I Concur: GROBAN, J., EVANS, J.