Opinion
F073903
02-27-2017
In re N.R., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. N.R., Defendant and Appellant.
Arthur L. Bowie, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Julie a. Hokans and Henry J. Valle, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. No. JW135837-00)
OPINION
THE COURT APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Kern County. William D. Palmer, Judge. Arthur L. Bowie, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Julie a. Hokans and Henry J. Valle, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Before Kane, Acting P.J., Poochigian, J. and Detjen, J.
-ooOoo-
Appellant N.R., a minor, appeals from the juvenile court's orders in this case, arguing the juvenile court failed to hold a hearing to consider her suitability for deferred entry of judgment (DEJ) under Welfare and Institutions Code section 790 et seq. The People concede. For the reasons set forth below, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.
All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise noted. --------
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On January 27, 2016, a search of appellant revealed she possessed a small paring knife while on school grounds. A wardship petition was subsequently filed pursuant to section 602, alleging appellant brought or possessed a weapon upon school grounds.
The People initially filed a determination of eligibility for deferred entry of judgment (form JV-750), which indicated the "youth is eligible." However, the following box, confirming "Citation and Written Notification for Deferred Entry of Judgment—Juvenile (form JV-751), is attached," was not checked. This form is not present in the record on appeal and there is no further discussion of DEJ eligibility or suitability in the reporter's transcripts.
A contested hearing on the petition was held, at which time the juvenile court found the allegation in the petition true. Appellant was deemed a ward of the court and ordered to perform 80 hours in the juvenile court work program, among other requirements.
This appeal timely followed.
DISCUSSION
Standard of Review and Applicable Law
"The DEJ provisions of section 790 et seq. were enacted as part of Proposition 21, The Gang Violence and Juvenile Crime Prevention Act of 1998, in March 2000. The sections provide that in 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.)
In granting or denying DEJ, the court engages in a two-step process, first determining an applicant's eligibility and then their suitability for the program. (§ 790, subd. (b).) "Under section 790, the prosecuting attorney is required to determine whether the minor is eligible for DEJ. Upon determining that a minor is eligible for DEJ, the prosecuting attorney '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 a form JV-750, the completion of which requires the prosecutor to indicate findings as to the eligibility requirements by checking, or not checking, corresponding boxes. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.800(b).) If a minor is found eligible for DEJ, form JV-751, entitled 'Citation and Written Notification for Deferred Entry of Judgment—Juvenile,' is used to notify the minor and his or her parent or guardian. There is a box to check on the form JV-750 indicating that the form JV-751 is attached." (In re C.W. (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 654, 659 (In re C.W.).) This later notice informs the minor of the procedures for obtaining DEJ and the need to admit the offense charged in the petition to obtain that relief. (Id. at p. 660.)
"Where the minor is eligible for DEJ it is the responsibility of the trial court to independently review the factors specified in section 791, subdivision (b) and determine if the minor will benefit from less restrictive treatment." (In re Damian M. (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 1, 5 (In re Damian M.).) "While the court retains discretion to deny DEJ to an eligible minor, the duty of the prosecuting attorney to assess the eligibility of the minor for DEJ and furnish notice with the petition is mandatory, as is the duty of the juvenile court to either summarily grant DEJ or examine the record, conduct a hearing, and make 'the final determination regarding education, treatment, and rehabilitation ....' " (In re Luis B. (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1117, 1123.) "When the juvenile court denies a request for DEJ where the minor is statutorily eligible, we review the decision under the abuse of discretion standard." (In re Damian M., supra, 185 Cal.App.4th at p. 5.) Judicial discretion is abused only if it results in an arbitrary or capricious disposition, or implies whimsical thinking, and "exceeds the bounds of reason, all of the circumstances being considered." (People v. Giminez (1975) 14 Cal.3d 68, 72; Scott v. C.R. Bard, Inc. (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 763, 783.) An Abuse of Discretion Occurred in This Case
In this case, there is no dispute appellant was eligible for DEJ, a fact reflected by the filing of Form JV-750, with the "youth is eligible" box checked. However, the box stating form JV-751 is attached is not checked, and as the People concede, there is no evidence in the record that appellant received form JV-751 or was otherwise provided notice of her eligibility for DEJ.
This case is thus squarely in line with In re C.W. and In re Luis B., and we choose to follow the rulings in those cases. Because the People did not follow the statutory guidelines for notifying appellant of her DEJ rights, appellant was not provided an opportunity to admit the allegations and seek DEJ. Likewise, the trial court was unable to proceed according to its statutory requirements and its implicit denial of suitability for DEJ, through its continued proceedings, was therefore an abuse of discretion. The error in this case requires that we set aside the juvenile court's findings and dispositional orders, and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
DISPOSITION
The orders are reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.