Justia Juvenile Law Opinion Summaries

A juvenile wardship petition alleged that Trenton committed petty theft and other crimes. Under a negotiated disposition, the juvenile court sustained amended misdemeanor allegations of second degree commercial burglary and ammunition possession; remaining counts were dismissed. Trenton was placed on probation in his mother’s home. A supplemental wardship petition was later filed, alleging that Trenton had committed one felony count of discharging a firearm with gross negligence, implicating “The Gang Violence and Juvenile Crime Prevention Act.” Trenton appeared for arraignment, represented by counsel. The attorney waived formal reading and advisement of rights and entered a plea of not guilty. The court scheduled a contested jurisdictional hearing. There was no discussion about the possibility of a deferred entry of judgment (DEJ). Following a contested hearing, the court sustained an amended felony count for being a minor in possession of a firearm, dismissed the original count, and committed Trenton to a rehabilitation facility for six months. The court of appeal remanded, holding that the juvenile court erred by failing to conduct a hearing into eligibility for a DEJ. After a minor is properly notified of eligibility for a DEJ, the juvenile court has a duty to evaluate whether the minor is suitable for one. View "P. v. Trenton D." on Justia Law

Defendant, a minor student, committed burglary in violation of Penal Code section 459 because he stole another student's cell phone out of a school locker. Defendant petitioned to change his juvenile felony burglary offense to a misdemeanor shoplifting offense under Proposition 47. The court affirmed the order denying defendant's petition for recall of sentence because the court, looking at the ordinary meaning of the statute, does not believe that the voters enacting Proposition 47 understood a public high school to be a commercial establishment or a theft from a school locker to be “shoplifting.” Therefore, the trial court correctly found defendant's burglary offense ineligible for reclassification. View "People v. J.L." on Justia Law

Minor J.B. appealed a condition of probation that the trial court imposed after he was convicted of petty theft. On appeal to the Court of Appeal, J.B. argued the trial court unconstitutionally imposed a condition of probation that required him to permit searches of and disclose all passwords to his electronic devices and social media sites. Because there was no evidence connecting the juvenile’s electronic device or social media usage to his offense or to a risk of future criminal conduct, the Court of Appeal concluded the condition was unreasonable. Accordingly, the Court modified the judgment to strike this condition. View "In re J.B." on Justia Law

Appellant, 16 years old when the petition underlying this appeal was filed, had a troubled history. Since 1999, her family has had 36 child welfare referrals from Lake, Shasta, Siskiyou and Solano Counties; it had five voluntary family maintenance cases between 2002 and 2014 but did not fulfill any of the suggested or requested services. Appellant appealed juvenile court orders continuing her as a ward of the court under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 and committing her to the custody of the probation officer for placement in "New Foundations." She argued: (1) there was insufficient evidence to support the court's finding that she resisted or obstructed a peace officer; (2) the court erred in failing to dismiss the section 602 petition (which she claimed impermissibly increased her maximum confinement time); and (3) the court abused its discretion in terminating her status as a section 300 dependent child and adjudging her a delinquent minor. After review, the Court of Appeal agreed with her first contention and therefore reversed the orders. View "In re Amanda A." on Justia Law

Two weeks before Defendant’s eighteenth birthday, delinquency complaints were filed alleging two counts of rape of a child under sixteen. Defendant appeared in the juvenile court and was duly arraigned. After Defendant turned eighteen, the Commonwealth sought youthful offender indictments against Defendant on the basis of a subset of the acts that were the subject of the complaints. After the indictments were returned, the Commonwealth entered nolle prosequi on all of the delinquency complaints. Defendant unsuccessfully moved to dismiss the indictments. In Mogelinski I, the Supreme Court reversed, concluding that the juvenile court did not have jurisdiction over the youthful offender indictments under the facts of this case. Thereafter, the Commonwealth brought a new complaint in the juvenile court against Defendant essentially identical to those where nolle prosequi was previously entered in order to seek a transfer hearing. The juvenile court granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. The Supreme Judicial Court reversed, holding that the juvenile court, in fact, had jurisdiction to proceed on the basis of the newly filed complaint. View "Commonwealth v. Mogelinkski" on Justia Law

The government filed a juvenile information against Y.C.T. alleging two acts of delinquency. The government filed a motion for a discretionary transfer of Y.C.T. to the district court’s criminal jurisdiction. A magistrate judge issued a written report recommending that Y.C.T. be transferred to adult status for criminal prosecution. The district court adopted the recommendation after conducting a de novo review, concluding that the transfer best served the interest of justice. The First Circuit affirmed the transfer order, holding that the district court’s reliance on the record, as developed by the magistrate judge, to conduct its de novo review was not an abuse of discretion and did not violate Y.C.T.’s right to due process. View "United States v. Y.C.T." on Justia Law

Patrick, age 17, burglarized a neighbor’s home with an adult cousin who was on parole. Patrick admitted to a juvenile wardship petition allegation of second degree burglary. Patrick told the probation officer who prepared a report for the hearing that he stole because he wanted marijuana and did not want to ask his parents for money and that he smoked marijuana up to three times a day and had not attended school regularly for a long time because of his marijuana use. The court adjudged Patrick a ward and placed him on probation, with conditions requiring him to “[s]ubmit person and any vehicle, room or property [and] any electronics and passwords under your control to search by Probation Officer or peace office[r] with or without a search warrant at any time.” Defense counsel objected, arguing there was no nexus between electronics and the burglary. The court of appeal declined to strike the condition entirely, but modified the reference to electronics to read: Submit all electronic devices under your control to a search of any text messages, voicemail messages, call logs, photographs, e-mail accounts and social media accounts, with or without a search warrant, at any time of the day or night, and provide the probation or peace officer with any passwords necessary to access the information specified. View "In re Patrick F." on Justia Law

Appellant, a juvenile, was convicted of first-degree attempted rape. The juvenile court ordered that Appellant register on the juvenile sex offender registry. Appellant appealed, arguing that ordering him to register as a sexual offender for his lifetime, pursuant to Mo. Rev. Stat. 211.425 and 589.400.1(6), violated his constitutional rights. The Supreme Court dismissed Appellant’s claims without prejudice, holding that Appellant’s challenge to the enforcement of section 589.400.1(6), which was not made part of the judgment against Appellant, was not ripe for review, and the lack of justiciability precluded relief in this action. View "S.C. v. Juvenile Officer" on Justia Law

Defendant, a minor named in two Welfare and Institution Code 602 petitions, was detained in juvenile hall for 294 days while receiving services to assist him in gaining competence after being declared incompetent to stand trial. At the end of that 294 day period, the delinquency court reinstated proceedings based on findings that minor was competent and he had “exaggerated” his inability to understand the nature of the proceedings. The court rejected defendant's argument that the delinquency court erred in finding competency despite the report of an evaluator that defendant did not understand the nature of the proceedings; the delinquency court did not comply with the standard required by Dusky v. United States; and the delinquency court held him to the standard of competence applicable to adults, rather than the broader standard applied to juveniles. Assuming there was undue delay without evidence of progress toward attaining competency, or a violation of the Protocol or section 709, no structural error is involved. The court concluded that any error was harmless and reversal is inappropriate. Further, the court rejected defendant's equal protection claim where defendant is not similarly situated to persons who fall under the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act, Welf. & Inst. Code 5000 et seq. The court concluded, however, that Probation condition No. 9 is modified to provide as follows: “You must go to school each day. You must be on time to each class. You must follow the rules of behavioral conduct set forth by school personnel. You must receive passing grades in each graded subject.” The court affirmed in all other respects. View "People v. Albert C." on Justia Law

M.A., then 13 years old, fought with her 14-year-old brother and cut him with a kitchen knife. M.A. was adjudicated delinquent of several offenses and ordered to register under the Murderer and Violent Offender Against Youth Registration Act, 730 ILCS 154/1. M.A. argued that the registration provisions violated her rights to substantive and procedural due process and equal protection. The Appellate Court rejected the substantive due process claim, but found the registration provisions unconstitutional for violating procedural due process and equal protection. The Illinois Supreme Court reinstated the registration requirement. Current dangerousness is not relevant to the duty to register, so M.A. did not have a due process right to a hearing to address that issue. The Act requires registration solely based upon the fact of conviction or adjudication, which M.A. had a procedurally safeguarded opportunity to contest during her juvenile adjudication proceedings. M.A. did not challenge her adjudication as a juvenile delinquent on appeal. Given that the charges for which M.A. is required to register would be felonies if M.A. committed those acts as an adult, and that those charges require a finding that the offender caused “great bodily harm, permanent disability, or disfigurement,” there is a rational relationship between M.A.’s registration and protection of the public. View "In re M.A." on Justia Law