Justia Juvenile Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant was convicted of murder. Defendant committed the crime when he was seventeen years old. In 1992, Defendant was sentenced to fifty years’ imprisonment without parole. In 2013, Defendant filed a motion to correct his allegedly illegal sentence, arguing that he was entitled to resentencing on the basis of recent changes to juvenile sentencing law. The trial court dismissed the motion for lack of jurisdiction. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that court precedent does not require a trial court to consider any particular mitigating factors associated with a juvenile’s age before imposing a sentence that includes an opportunity for parole, and therefore, Defendant has not raised a colorable claim of invalidity that would require resentencing. View "State v. Boyd" on Justia Law

Ray M. appealed an Imperial County juvenile court order denying his motion to conduct a new assessment under Welfare and Institutions Code section 241.11 and declaring him a delinquent ward under section 602. Ray filed his motion after the Kern County juvenile court determined he should be deemed a ward, and not a dependent, without providing notice to his dependency attorney or to the Imperial County court as required by section 241.1 and California Rules of Court, rule 5.512.2 Ray also argued, and the Imperial County Department of Social Services conceded, that the juvenile court erred at the outset of the dependency by failing to provide notice as required by the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). The Court of Appeal agreed with Ray that because the Kern County juvenile court did not comply with the notice requirements set forth in section 241.1 and rule 5.512, the Imperial County juvenile court had the authority to revisit the Kern County court's assessment under section 241.1. Accordingly, the Court reversed the orders and remanded the case for the juvenile court assigned to hear Ray's dependency matter to conduct a new assessment under section 241.1 and, if Ray was deemed a dependent, to comply with the notice provisions of ICWA. View "In re Ray M." on Justia Law

Defendant was two months short of his eighteenth birthday when he shot and killed Timothy Irving. After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of eight felonies, including first degree murder. The trial court sentenced Defendant to life in prison for the first degree murder charge. Defendant appealed the trial court’s refusal to appoint a neuropsychologist at the Commonwealth’s expense to assist in the preparation of his presentence report and its decision to impose a life sentence. The court of appeals denied Defendant’s petition for appeal with regard to the denial of his motion for a neuropsychologist but granted his petition with regard to the sentence imposed. The court of appeals then concluded that the trial court did not err in sentencing Defendant because a sentence of life did not exceed the statutory maximum penalty for first-degree murder and that because Defendant was not facing a mandatory life sentence, Miller v. Alabama did not apply. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant failed to show any abuse of discretion in the trial court’s decision that mandated review by the court of appeals; and (2) Miller has no application to the present case. View "Johnson v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

In 2010, the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services petitioned for wardship of M.I., a minor, 705 ILCS 405/2-3, alleging that M.I.’s mother had neglected her and that M.I.’s father had an extensive criminal history. The juvenile court granted the petition, finding M.I. to be neglected. The court ordered father to obtain a drug and alcohol assessment, submit to random drug testing twice monthly, undergo a psychological examination, and complete a parenting class. Until he dropped out of high school, father was enrolled in special education courses for learning disabilities. He had been unemployed since 2007. Father had been incarcerated on eight different occasions for approximately 18-19 years in total but had not been incarcerated since 2005. He suffers from bipolar disorder and admitted to regular marijuana use, indicating that he had been clean for two months. Father is functionally illiterate, and possesses an IQ of 58. The state asserted that he did not attend drug testing or participate in a drug and alcohol evaluation and refused to provide an address to his caseworker. The court found both parents unfit. Thereafter, at five different permanency hearings, the juvenile court found that father had failed to make reasonable efforts to achieve the service plan and permanency goal. The court appointed DCFS as guardian. The Illinois Supreme Court reinstated the termination of father’s rights. The statute, 750 ILCS 50/1(D)(b), does not contain a willfulness requirement. The juvenile court considered father’s intellectual disability and other circumstances, such as his sporadic attendance at visitation, when it found him unfit under subsection (b). View "In re M.I." on Justia Law

A petition filed under Welfare and Institutions Code 602 alleged that E.G. committed four offenses. He pled no contest to battery causing serious bodily injury and grand theft; the remaining charges were dismissed. The offenses E.G. pled no contest to were “wobblers,” offenses (Penal Code 17(b)(3)) that “are chargeable or, in the discretion of the court, punishable as either a felony or a misdemeanor.” The petition alleged them as felonies. The juvenile court placed E.G. on probation and committed him to a youth facility for nine months. The court of appeal remanded, finding the juvenile court had not exercised its discretion to declare the offenses misdemeanors or felonies as required by statute. Months later, E.G. moved to have his offenses reduced to misdemeanors under section 17(b), stating that the juvenile court had declared the offenses to be felonies. The state did not dispute this statement, although no such declaration was made on remand. The juvenile court denied the motion, finding that section 17(b)(3) did not apply in juvenile proceedings. A bench officer subsequently stated he had declared the offenses to be felonies at disposition and did so again. The court then terminated E.G.’s wardship and probation. Holding that the “wobbler” provision applies in juvenile proceedings, the court of appeal remanded to allow the juvenile court to exercise its discretion. View "In re E.G." on Justia Law

D.R., born in November 2004, lived with her maternal grandmother since she was an infant and was “thriving” in her grandmother’s care. D.R.’s two half siblings lived separately with mother and their father in the same apartment building. Dependency proceedings were initiated in 2013, following a violent incident involving the father of D.R.’s two half-siblings. Mother failed to comply with reunification plans. D.R.’s father, who initially was described as “whereabouts unknown,” eventually was located living at the home of his mother and stepfather. Father had been convicted of statutory rape of D.R.’s mother and did not see D.R. after he was released from incarceration. His name was not on D.R.’s birth certificate. Father visited D.R. for a four-month period during the dependency proceedings, after which he stopped visiting. Father did not attend conjoint therapy with D.R. As D.R.’s permanent plan, the juvenile court selected legal guardianship over adoption by her grandmother. The court of appeal reversed, holding that the trial court was required to select the more permanent plan of adoption. No substantial evidence supported the court’s rationale for selecting legal guardianship instead of adoption. View "In re D.R." on Justia Law

In 1987, Defendant murdered his twelve-year-old sister. Defendant was fourteen years old at the time of the murder. Defendant was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. In 2013, Defendant filed a motion for postconviction relief, arguing that his sentence was cruel and unusual punishment in light of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Miller v. Alabama. The district court vacated Defendant’s life sentence, finding that the sentence was within the parameters of the holding in Miller, that the rule in Miller applies retroactively, and that Defendant was therefore entitled to postconviction relief. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because the relevant sentencing scheme mandated life imprisonment without the possibility for parole, the district court was bound by Miller. Remanded for resentencing. View "State v. Thieszen" on Justia Law

Sandrino T. and Remus M. were each charged in the juvenile court with six counts of ATM “skimming.” In each case, the State moved to transfer to county court. The juvenile court granted the motions. Both Sandrino and Remus appealed. The Supreme Court consolidated the cases on appeal for disposition. The Court then dismissed each appeal for lack of jurisdiction, holding that the orders transferring the cases from juvenile court to county court were not final and appealable because the transfer of the cases from juvenile court to criminal court did not affect the substantial rights of Sandrino and Remus. View "In re Sandrino T." on Justia Law

In 2013, in Contra Costa County Juvenile Court, defendant pleaded no contest to felony theft. The court declared him a ward of the state. A year later, a new petition alleged defendant unlawfully possessed a firearm. He pleaded no contest to a misdemeanor variant of the charge. The following year, prior to a disposition hearing on the new charge, defendant’s case was transferred to the San Francisco Juvenile Court (Welfare and Institutions Code section 750) because his family had moved. The San Francisco Juvenile Court re-declared defendant a ward, placed him with his mother, and kept intact orders of the transferor court. Days later, defendant filed a Proposition 47 petition in the San Francisco Juvenile Court to reduce his felony theft offense to misdemeanor larceny. The San Francisco court denied his petition, ruling only the Contra Costa Juvenile Court had jurisdiction to act on defendant’s petition, citing Penal Code 1170.18(a), which states that a defendant “may petition for a recall of sentence before the trial court that entered the judgment of conviction.” The court of appeal reversed. Proposition 47 is not intended to undercut an important goal of the juvenile justice system, to preserve and support the family unit. View "In re I.S." on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to two counts of armed sexual battery, armed burglary, and armed robbery. Defendant was fifteen years old at the time he committed the offenses. The trial court sentenced Defendant to two life sentences and two concurrent twenty-five-year terms. After Graham v. Florida was decided, the trial court resentenced Defendant to concurrent sentences of forty-five years. On appeal, the First District Court of Appeal concluded that Defendant was not entitled to resentencing under Henry v. State, which applied the new sentence review statute to a Graham-eligible defendant, because Defendant’s forty-five-year term of imprisonment did not constitute a de facto life sentence in violation of Graham. However, the district court certified a question to the Supreme Court regarding the need for clarity on a category of Graham cases. The Supreme Court disapproved the court of appeal’s decision affirming Defendant’s resentencing, holding that a defendant whose initial sentence for a nonhomicide crime violated Graham and who was resentenced to concurrent forty-five year terms was entitled to new resentencing under the framework established in chapter 2014-220, Laws of Florida. View "Kelsey v. State" on Justia Law