Opinion
A156764
09-25-2019
In re J.W., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. J.W., Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Solano County Super. Ct. No. J44204)
J.W. appeals from orders issued after a contested jurisdictional hearing and disposition hearing in this proceeding under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602. He contends he was eligible for a deferred entry of judgment under section 790 et seq. and rule 5.800 of the California Rules of Court, the prosecutor failed to provide proper notice of his eligibility, and the juvenile court failed to consider whether he was suitable for it. We will conditionally vacate the orders and remand for further proceedings.
Except where otherwise indicated, all statutory references hereafter are to the Welfare and Institutions Code. --------
I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
In March 2018, the Napa County District Attorney filed a supplemental juvenile wardship petition under section 602, subdivision (a), alleging that J.W. gave false information to a police officer (Pen. Code, § 148.9, subd. (a)) and committed first degree residential burglary (Pen. Code, § 459). The Penal Code section 148.9 count was dismissed in April 2018.
As discussed post, in April 2018 the prosecutor indicated that J.W. was eligible for a deferred entry of judgment. (§ 790 et seq.) In August 2018, the prosecutor indicated that J.W. was not eligible for a deferred entry of judgment.
The matter proceeded to a contested jurisdictional hearing. In November 2018, the juvenile court found the burglary allegation true. The matter was transferred for disposition to Solano County, where J.W. resided.
In March 2019, the juvenile court declared J.W. a ward of the court, placed him on probation in his mother's custody, and imposed various conditions of probation. This appeal followed.
II. DISCUSSION
J.W. contends the jurisdictional and disposition orders should be vacated because he was eligible for a deferred entry of judgment, a process that would have precluded the jurisdictional and disposition hearings.
The procedure for a deferred entry of judgment has been explained as follows: "[I]n lieu of jurisdictional and dispositional hearings, a minor may admit the allegations contained in a section 602 petition and waive time for the pronouncement of judgment. Entry of judgment is deferred. After the successful completion of a term of probation, on the motion of the prosecution and with a positive recommendation from the probation department, the court is required to dismiss the charges. The arrest upon which judgment was deferred is deemed never to have occurred, and any records of the juvenile court proceeding are sealed. (§§ 791, subd. (a)(3), 793, subd. (c).)" (Martha C. v. Superior Court (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 556, 558 (Martha C.).)
A minor is eligible for a deferred entry of judgment if he or she is accused in a juvenile wardship proceeding of committing a felony and all of the following apply: the minor has not previously been declared to be a ward of the court for the commission of a felony; the charged offense is not one of the offenses enumerated in section 707, subdivision (b); the minor has not previously been committed to the custody of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Division of Juvenile Facilities; the minor's record does not indicate that probation has been revoked without being completed; the minor is at least 14 years old at the time of the hearing; the minor is eligible for probation pursuant to Penal Code section 1203.06; and the charged offense is not rape, sodomy, oral copulation, or an act of sexual penetration specified in Penal Code section 289 under specified circumstances. (§ 790, subds. (a)(1)-(7); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.800(a); Martha C., supra, 108 Cal.App.4th at pp. 558-559.)
The parties to this appeal agree that J.W. is eligible for a deferred entry of judgment.
Certain procedures must be followed pursuant to section 790 et seq. The prosecutor must review the file to determine whether the minor is eligible for a deferred entry of judgment. (§ 790, subd. (b).) If the prosecutor concludes the minor is eligible, he or she "shall file a declaration in writing with the court or state for the record the grounds upon which the determination is based, and shall make this information available to the minor and his or her attorney." (§ 790, subd. (b).) The form designed for this purpose is Judicial Council form JV-750, Determination of Eligibility—Deferred Entry of Judgment-Juvenile, which shall be filed with the petition. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.800(b)(1); In re Trenton D. (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 1319, 1322-1323.)
Under section 791, "[t]he prosecuting attorney's written notification to the minor shall also include," inter alia, "[a] full description of the procedures for deferred entry of judgment" and "[a] clear statement that, in lieu of jurisdictional and disposition hearings, the court may grant a deferred entry of judgment with respect to any offense charged in the petition, provided that the minor admits each allegation contained in the petition and waives time for the pronouncement of judgment." (§ 791, subds. (a)(1), (a)(3).)
In addition, a "Citation and Written Notification for Deferred Entry of Judgment—Juvenile" (Form JV-751) must be issued to the minor's custodial parent, guardian, or foster parent, and the form must be personally served on the custodial adult at least 24 hours before the appearance hearing. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.800(c).)
Once eligibility is determined, the court has a mandatory duty (unless the minor rejects deferred entry by contesting the charges) "to either grant DEJ summarily or examine the record, conduct a hearing, and determine whether the minor is suitable for DEJ, based upon whether the minor will derive benefit from 'education, treatment, and rehabilitation.' " (In re D.L. (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 1240, 1243.)
Here, the prosecutor filed a Form JV-750 on April 13, 2018, finding J.W. eligible for DEJ. Form JV-751 was attached and addressed to J.W.'s "Parent/Guardian" at an address associated with J.W.'s father. No hearing date or time was listed on Form JV-751.
About four months later on August 16, 2018, the prosecutor filed an Amended Form JV-750, indicating that J.W. was "ineligible" for deferred entry. No Form JV-751 was attached. The proof of service shows service of the Amended Form JV-750 on J.W.'s counsel, but not on his parent or guardian.
Respondent agrees that J.W. was statutorily eligible for a deferred entry of judgment yet not notified of his eligibility, and that the "judgment" should therefore be conditionally vacated and the matter remanded for further proceedings consistent with section 790 et seq., including a determination of whether J.W. is suitable for a deferred entry of judgment.
Because the procedure for deferred entry of judgment is designed to replace the jurisdictional hearing and disposition hearing, we will conditionally vacate the orders from those hearings and remand for further proceedings consistent with section 790 et seq. and rule 5.800 of the California Rules of Court, including a judicial determination of whether to grant J.W. a deferred entry of judgment. If the juvenile court grants J.W. a deferred entry of judgment, the order shall remain vacated. If the juvenile court decides not to grant J.W. a deferred entry of judgment (or he opts not to accept it), the jurisdictional and disposition orders shall be reinstated. (In re Trenton D., supra, 242 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1327-1328; In re D.L., supra, 206 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1245-1246.)
III. DISPOSITION
The jurisdictional order of November 15, 2018 and the disposition order of March 1, 2019 are conditionally vacated. The matter is remanded for further proceedings consistent with Welfare and Institutions Code section 790 et seq. and rule 5.800 of the California Rules of Court. If the juvenile court grants a deferred entry of judgment to J.W., the orders shall remain vacated. If the juvenile court denies a deferred entry of judgment, or if J.W. opts not to accept it, the jurisdictional order (including the sustained residential burglary allegation) and the disposition order shall be reinstated, subject to J.W.'s right to have the denial of a deferred entry of judgment reviewed on appeal.
/s/_________
NEEDHAM, J. We concur. /s/_________
JONES, P.J. /s/_________
BURNS, J.