Justia Juvenile Law Opinion Summaries

In 1998, after being beaten by men in a park, G, age 17, and his friend took the friend’s father’s handgun to the assailants’ house. G held the gun to a woman’s head and threatened to shoot. Men, holding baseball bats, came out of the house. G threatened them, but then left. A juvenile wardship petition (Pen. Code 602(a)), alleged: assault with a handgun; criminal threats by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury; and possession of a concealable firearm. The juvenile court committed him to the juvenile ranch facilities. G successfully completed the program and was released on probation four months later. He worked in the family business and attended community college. In 2006, he enlisted in the Army. He was promoted to the rank of sergeant and received Commendation Medals for service in Iraq and numerous other commendations and awards. G obtained a degree from California State University. In 2013, G unsuccessfully sought to seal his juvenile record. The court of appeal affirmed, stating that G is a valuable member of society; sealing his juvenile records would acknowledge his achievements. However, courts have no authority to rewrite a statute. G falls within an exception to Section 781(d) as a person who committed an offense listed in section 707(b) when he was over 14 years old. View "In re G.Y." on Justia Law

In Miller v. Alabama, the U.S. Supreme Court held that mandatory sentencing schemes that impose on juvenile offenders a term of life imprisonment without parole violate the Eighth Amendment. At issue in this case was whether a life sentence without parole may be imposed on a juvenile homicide offender in the exercise of the sentencing authority’s discretion. Defendant, who was seventeen years old at the time of the crimes leading to his convictions, was convicted of murder and other crimes. Defendant was sentenced to a total effective sentence of 100 years imprisonment, which was the functional equivalent to life without the possibility of parole. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) in considering whether to sentence a juvenile to a discretionary sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, the sentencer is required to take into account the factors that Miller deemed constitutionally significant before determining that such severe punishment is appropriate; and (2) in light of the uncertainty of Defendant’s sentence upon due consideration of the Miller factors, a new sentencing proceeding must be held that conforms with the dictates of Miller. View "State v. Riley" on Justia Law

Police officers detained and searched D.D. (a juvenile) and a companion after observing them apparently smoking marijuana in a private parking area. D.D. was found to be in possession of a concealed loaded handgun and charged with violation of Penal Code sections 25400(a)(2), and 25850(a). D.D.’s motion to suppress the evidence was denied, and the petition’s allegations were found true. The juvenile court also found the offenses to be mandatory felonies. The court of appeal reversed, holding that D.D.’s offenses were not automatically felonies by virtue of his status as a minor, but affirmed the denial of D.D.’s motion to suppress. View "In re D.D." on Justia Law

The state charged a 16-year-old (Jordan) with three counts of unlawful use of a weapon (AUUW) 720 ILCS 5/24-1.6, and one count of unlawful possession of a firearm (UPF), alleging that he carried in a vehicle an uncased, loaded, and immediately accessible firearm (24-1.6(a)(1), (a)(3)(A)); carried a handgun in a vehicle while under 21 years of age (24-1.6(a)(1), (a)(3)(I)); and carried a firearm in a vehicle without a valid FOID card (24-1.6(a)(1), (a)(3)(C)). The UPF count alleged that Jordan, under 18 years of age, knowingly possessed a firearm of a size which may be concealed upon the person (24-3.1(a)(1). Jordan moved to dismiss, contending that the AUUW statute had been found unconstitutional by the Seventh Circuit in 2012, as violating the second amendment right to bear arms for self-defense outside the home. The circuit court dismissed the AUUW counts, but denied the motion as to the UPF count. The state conceded that one count had been properly dismissed but argued that the remaining counts remained constitutionally valid because they required proof of independent aggravating factors. The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed dismissal of the first count based on section 24-1.6(a)(1), (a)(3)(A), which it found to be facially unconstitutional in 2013; reversed dismissal of charges based on sections 24-1.6(a)(1), (a)(3)(C) and (a)(3)(I), which are severable from the unconstitutional provision. View "In re: Jordan G." on Justia Law

Following a 2012 Los Angeles shooting Castaneda died; Barragan and Villanueva survived. Two surveillance cameras recorded the shooting. Police directed their attention to Art, who was then 13 years old. Art’s custodial interrogation was videotaped and subsequently transcribed. After viewing a videotape of the shooting, Art said “Could I have an attorney? Because that’s not me." Art, denied a request to see his mother, subsequently made incriminating statements. The court of appeal reversed denial of a motion to suppress, holding that the statement was an unequivocal and unambiguous invocation of his rights under Miranda v. Arizona. A reasonable officer, in light of the circumstances known to the officer or that would have been objectively apparent to a reasonable officer, including the juvenile’s age, would understand the statement by the juvenile to be a request for an attorney. The error was not harmless. View "In re Art T." on Justia Law

Welfare and Institutions Code section 727.1 (b)(1) provides that a court “may not” order placement of a ward at an out-of-state facility unless “[i]n-state facilities or programs have been determined to be unavailable or inadequate to meet the needs of the minor.” After appellant, born July 1998, admitted an allegation in a section 602 petition that he committed involuntary manslaughter (Pen. Code 192 (b)), the juvenile court placed him in a facility in Iowa, based on a desire to remove him from "negative influences" and a belief that he constituted a flight risk and a danger to the community. The court of appeal reversed, finding that there was no substantial evidence in-state facilities were unavailable or inadequate to meet his needs. View "In re Khalid B." on Justia Law

In 1994, at age 14, Ruelas admitted committing felony assault with a deadly weapon and misdemeanor annoying or molesting a child. Three years later, while Ruelas was still a minor, the juvenile court found true allegations that he had committed three felonies: robbery, assault with a deadly weapon, and vehicle theft, and committed Ruelas to the California Youth Authority for a maximum term of eight years two months, including four months imposed as a result of Ruelas’s prior admission of annoying or molesting a child. Upon his release, Ruelas was required to register as a sex offender because of his Penal Code 647.6 adjudication. In 2012, Ruelas unsuccessfully sought a writ of mandate arguing that his equal protection guarantees were violated by the requirement that he register as a sex offender. The court of appeal reversed. Requiring registration for those adjudicated of violating section 647.6 as juveniles only if they are committed to the Division of Juvenile Justice because they have committed another nonsex crime violates the equal protection clauses of the federal and state Constitutions. View "Ruelas v. Super. Ct." on Justia Law

In 1995, Wilson, White and Carr, all age 17, approached a Pomona bank, wearing masks and carrying handguns. One of them fired at the security guard who stood outside the bank. The guard fled and alerted police. Inside the bank, they told the customers to “hit the deck.” Theresa Hernandez, a bank employee, was shot and killed during the robbery. The three fled in a car driven by Smith. Another car occupied by Brown also waited nearby. White later admitted to his girlfriend that he had shot Hernandez during the robbery because he thought she was activating an alarm. Brown was arrested. Wilson, Carr and White turned themselves into the police a few days after the robbery. Wilson, sentenced to life imprisonment without parole, sought habeas relief in 2013, asserting, that under the principles announced by the Supreme Court in Miller v. Alabama (2012) the sentence violated the Eighth Amendment prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment and that he is entitled to be resentenced based on the individual sentencing factors that the Miller Court directed trial courts to consider when sentencing a juvenile offender for a homicide conviction. The court of appeal vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing. View "In re: Wilson" on Justia Law

A.L., a minor, was charged with felony second degree robbery of another minor, personally using a handgun. The juvenile court held a contested jurisdictional hearing; testimony focused on the sequence of events and on A.L.’s relative culpability. During closing argument, the juvenile court noted that it “didn’t think there was any evidence” of the section 12022(b) enhancement, which requires personal use of a deadly or dangerous weapon. The prosecutor indicated that A.L. had been mistakenly charged under section 12022(b) and should have been charged with the section 12022(a) enhancement, for vicarious liability when another principal is armed. She moved to amend the petition to conform to proof. A.L.’s attorney objected. The judge concluded that A.L. would not be unfairly surprised or prejudiced by the change, permitted the amendment, sustained the second degree robbery allegation, and found true the section 12022(a) enhancement. At the dispositional hearing, the juvenile court adjudged A.L. a ward of the juvenile court with a maximum period of confinement of six years, including one year for the section 12022(a) enhancement. The court of appeal affirmed, rejecting an argument that the court violated A.L.’s due process rights by allowing amendment of his delinquency petition during closing arguments. View "In re A.L." on Justia Law

E.W. was fifteen years old, in the custody of the Department for Children and Families (DCF), and living in a foster home when in 2013, a Vermont state trooper in uniform arrived at E.W.'s foster home to investigate a break-in and motor-vehicle theft. E.W.'s foster father then spoke privately with E.W. and told him not to say anything to the officer until the foster father contacted DCF. When asked what he and E.W. discussed, the foster father responded, "[h]onesty," explaining that he was "trying to encourage E.W. to be honest," and how "[i]t's not always easy to do the right thing." He denied specifically directing E.W. to do the right thing, however, or telling him that he had to speak with the officer. The foster father telephoned for guidance from E.W.'s guardian ad litem (GAL), who told him that "[u]sually the attorneys do not like the children interviewed unless they are there." The GAL then attempted to reach E.W.'s attorney, leaving a voice mail, and then spoke with the foster father again. The GAL advised him to be present during any conversation between E.W. and the police officer. The GAL could not reach E.W.'s attorney. The interview was not recorded; no Miranda warnings were given. The foster father was present throughout. He recalled that the officer "asked E.W. about where the car was," informing him that the police "were aware" he had taken it to Derby "but didn't know where it had gone after that." The foster father also recalled that he twice interrupted the officer's questioning to speak privately with E.W. when it appeared that "the floodgates . . . opened" and E.W. started making admissions to offenses beyond those that the officer had described. E.W. was subsequently charged with two counts of burglary, four counts of unlawful trespass in an occupied residence, three counts of petit larceny, one count of unlawful mischief, and one count of operating a vehicle without owner consent. He moved to suppress his statements to the officer and dismiss all counts, asserting violations of his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights as well as his rights under Chapter I, Article 10 of the Vermont Constitution. The trial court denied the motion, concluding that E.W. was not in custody at the time of the interrogation, and that Miranda warnings were therefore not required. E.W. then entered a conditional plea to all counts except the unlawful-mischief count, which was dismissed by the State, and reserved his right to appeal the suppression ruling. On appeal, E.W. argued that his motion to suppress should have been granted under both the federal and state constitutions. After review, the Supreme Court concluded that E.W. was in custody, and his motion to suppress should have been granted. The trial court's judgment was reversed. View "In re E.W." on Justia Law