From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re J. G

California Court of Appeals, First District, Fifth Division
Nov 24, 2009
No. A123691 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 24, 2009)

Opinion


In re J. G., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. J. G., Defendant and Appellant A123691 California Court of Appeal, First District, Fifth Division November 24, 2009

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Alameda County Super. Ct. No. SJ06005752

Jones, P.J.

J.G. appeals from a disposition committing him to the Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ). He argues that conditions imposed by the court that were to take effect during his confinement are invalid and must be reversed. We agree and order the appropriate modification.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The precise nature of appellant’s offenses are not relevant to the issue that has been raised. It should suffice to say that on December 9, 2008, the Alameda County Juvenile Court ordered that appellant be committed to the DJJ for 5 years and 10 months.

II. DISCUSSION

The juvenile court ordered appellant to comply with the following conditions while in the custody of the DJJ:

“He’s not to associate with Luis Bernal.

“He’s not to belong to any criminal street gang or associate with any persons he knows or should reasonably know are members of a criminal street gang.

“He’s not to wear gang clothing, colors, or emblems or acquire tattoos or piercings reasonably known to be associated with or symbolic of criminal street gang membership.

“He’s not to possess or use any graffiti-creating materials, including, but not limited to, spray paint, marking pens, and grinding stones or any devices which can be used to break into homes, cars, or other property.”

Appellant now challenges these conditions arguing they were unauthorized in light of his commitment to the DJJ.

The People concede the error and we agree.

When a minor is committed to the DJJ, his “treatment and rehabilitation—including physical confinement and parole—are placed under the direct supervision of [the DJJ] rather than the juvenile court.” (In re Antoine D. (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 1314, 1324-1325.) “[A] commitment to the [DJJ]... deprives the juvenile court of any authority to directly supervise the juvenile.” (In re Ronny P. (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 1204, 1208.) The imposition of conditions that are to take effect while the minor is under the control of the DJJ is, in effect, an “impermissible attempt by the juvenile court to be a secondary body governing the minor’s rehabilitation.” (In re Allen N. (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 513, 516.) The appropriate remedy is to strike the conditions. (Ibid.)

III. DISPOSITION

The conditions set forth above are stricken. In all other respects, the disposition is affirmed.

We concur: Simons, J., Needham, J.


Summaries of

In re J. G

California Court of Appeals, First District, Fifth Division
Nov 24, 2009
No. A123691 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 24, 2009)
Case details for

In re J. G

Case Details

Full title:In re J. G., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. v. J. G.…

Court:California Court of Appeals, First District, Fifth Division

Date published: Nov 24, 2009

Citations

No. A123691 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 24, 2009)