Opinion
C082582
03-14-2017
In re I.S., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. I.S., Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. No. JL13019)
I.S. seeks to appeal the juvenile court's finding that he violated his probation as alleged in a Welfare and Institutions Code section 777 petition, arguing the findings are not supported by sufficient evidence. The juvenile court never held a dispositional hearing or issued a dispositional order after making this finding. The People contend this appeal must be dismissed because there is no appealable order. We agree. Accordingly, we shall dismiss the appeal.
Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
I. BACKGROUND
In July 2013, a petition was filed pursuant to section 602 against I.S., who was then 12 years old, alleging sodomy with a person under the age of 18, a lewd and lascivious act upon a child under the age of 14, and oral copulation with a person under the age of 18. The petition was later amended to additionally allege attempted sexual penetration with a person under the age of 18 and indecent exposure, both of which I.S. admitted. The original three counts were dismissed, and I.S. was adjudged a ward of the juvenile court. On January 26, 2015, the court ordered that I.S. be placed at the Remi Vista group home.
In April 2016, I.S. was charged in a section 777 petition with violating his probation when he was suspended from school for grabbing the groin area of another student.
On June 23, 2016, the court held a hearing on the probation violation, after which it found the allegation to be true. It then proceeded to note that no modification of any prior orders was being sought. The court concluded, "So, we don't then need to have a disposition hearing or a referral for disposition matters because there is no anticipated conditions consequence, other than the court has now made a finding on the minor's record that some inappropriate conduct did occur."
The minutes from the proceeding states:
"By a preponderance of evidence, the Court [f]inds the allegation contained in the Petition for Violation of Wardship filed on April 25, 2016[,] to be true. [¶] The People and Probation are not recommending any additional punishment for this violation. [¶] This matter remains set for the purpose of [a] 36-MONTH REVIEW HEARING on 8/15/2016 at 1:00 [p.m.] [¶] The minor remains detained at Remi Vista, Inc."
I.S. filed an appeal on the same day.
II. DISCUSSION
"The right to appeal is statutory only, and a party may not appeal a trial court's judgment, order or ruling unless such is expressly made appealable by statute." (People v. Loper (2015) 60 Cal.4th 1155, 1159.) Here, the relevant statute is section 800: "A judgment in a proceeding under Section 601 or 602 may be appealed from, by the minor, in the same manner as any final judgment, and any subsequent order may be appealed from, by the minor, as from an order after judgment." (§ 800, subd. (a).)
"In general, a 'judgment' is 'the final determination of the rights of the parties in an action or proceeding.' (Code Civ. Proc., § 577.) More specifically, the 'judgment' in a juvenile court proceeding is the order made after the trial court has found facts establishing juvenile court jurisdiction and has conducted a hearing into the proper disposition to be made." (In re Mario C. (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1303, 1307.) "Section 777, subdivision (a)(2) . . . establishes the juvenile court procedure for finding probation violations and modifying prior dispositions when new misconduct is committed by those on probation for crimes previously adjudicated under section 602." (John L. v. Superior Court (2004) 33 Cal.4th 158, 165.)
Section 777 states, in relevant part: "An order changing or modifying a previous order by removing a minor from the physical custody of a parent, guardian, relative, or friend and directing placement in a foster home, or commitment to a private institution or commitment to a county institution, or an order changing or modifying a previous order by directing commitment to the Youth Authority shall be made only after a noticed hearing. "(a) The notice shall be made as follows: " [¶] . . . [¶] "(2) By the probation officer or the prosecuting attorney if the minor is a court ward or probationer under Section 602 in the original matter and the notice alleges a violation of a condition of probation not amounting to a crime. The notice shall contain a concise statement of facts sufficient to support this conclusion. "[¶] . . . [¶] "(c) The facts alleged in the notice shall be established by a preponderance of the evidence at a hearing to change, modify, or set aside a previous order. . . ." (§ 777, subds. (a)-(c).) --------
Here, the court found a violation of probation that was one of the prerequisites to modifying a prior dispositional order, but it never held a dispositional hearing regarding whether such a modification was appropriate. The parties agree this finding is analogous to a jurisdictional order under section 702 that finds the minor is a person described in section 602 and that also precedes a dispositional order. Such findings are neither orders within the meaning of section 800 nor themselves appealable. (See In re Tracy Z. (1987) 195 Cal.App.3d 107, 112 ["A jurisdictional order is only a finding"].) Instead, they are reviewable on appeal from a dispositional order. (In re James J. (1986) 187 Cal.App.3d 1339, 1342.) We disagree with I.S.'s assertion that the document the court signed related to the June 23, 2016, hearing was a dispositional order. Merely noting that I.S. remained detained at Remi Vista, Inc. did not rise to the level of creating a dispositional order. The court explained it would not hold a dispositional hearing and was only making a finding on I.S.'s record. The court ordered nothing at all. Accordingly, there was no appealable order.
III. DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed.
/S/_________
RENNER, J. We concur: /S/_________
HULL, Acting P. J. /S/_________
BUTZ, J.