Juvenile Delinquency - Revision history

Sysop: /* Informal supervision */

2025-12-08T05:45:11Z

Informal supervision

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:45, 8 December 2025
Line 39:		Line 39:

	(b) A minor shall not be eligible for the program of supervision set forth in Section 654 or 654.2 in the case of a petition alleging that the minor has violated an offense listed in subdivision (b) of Section 707, except in unusual cases where the court determines the interests of justice would be best served and the court specified on the record the reason for its decision.		(b) A minor shall not be eligible for the program of supervision set forth in Section 654 or 654.2 in the case of a petition alleging that the minor has violated an offense listed in subdivision (b) of Section 707, except in unusual cases where the court determines the interests of justice would be best served and the court specified on the record the reason for its decision.

			Once complete, it's sealed as under WIC786. (WIC654.2(a).)

Sysop: /* Informal supervision */

2025-12-08T05:43:40Z

Informal supervision

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:43, 8 December 2025
Line 23:		Line 23:

	Under WIC654.3, the following disqualify someone from informal supervision.		Under WIC654.3, the following disqualify someone from informal supervision.

			(a) A minor shall not be eligible for the program of supervision set forth in Section 654 or 654.2 in the following cases, except where the interests of justice would best be served and the court specifies on the record the reasons for its decision:

	(1) A petition alleges that the minor has violated Section 245.5, 626.9, or 626.10 of the Penal Code.		(1) A petition alleges that the minor has violated Section 245.5, 626.9, or 626.10 of the Penal Code.

Sysop: /* Informal supervision */

2025-12-08T05:43:12Z

Informal supervision

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:43, 8 December 2025
Line 21:		Line 21:

	Court can order informal supervision over objection of probation officer (Raymond B. v. Superior Court (1980) 102 Cal.App.2d 372, 378-378) and over objection of prosecutor (Charles S. v. Superior Court (1982) 32 Cal.3d 741).		Court can order informal supervision over objection of probation officer (Raymond B. v. Superior Court (1980) 102 Cal.App.2d 372, 378-378) and over objection of prosecutor (Charles S. v. Superior Court (1982) 32 Cal.3d 741).

			Under WIC654.3, the following disqualify someone from informal supervision.

			(1) A petition alleges that the minor has violated Section 245.5, 626.9, or 626.10 of the Penal Code.

			(2) A petition alleges that the minor has violated Section 186.22 of the Penal Code.

			(3) The minor has previously participated in a program of supervision pursuant to Section 654.

			(4) The minor has previously been adjudged a ward of the court pursuant to Section 602.

			(5) (A) A petition alleges that the minor has violated an offense in which the restitution owed to the victim exceeds five thousand dollars ($5,000). However, a minor’s inability to pay restitution due to the minor’s indigence shall not be grounds for finding a minor ineligible for the program of supervision or a finding that the minor has failed to comply with the terms of the program of supervision.

			(B) For purposes of this paragraph, the definition of “victim” in paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 730.6 and “restitution” in subdivision (h) of Section 730.6 shall apply.

			(b) A minor shall not be eligible for the program of supervision set forth in Section 654 or 654.2 in the case of a petition alleging that the minor has violated an offense listed in subdivision (b) of Section 707, except in unusual cases where the court determines the interests of justice would be best served and the court specified on the record the reason for its decision.

Sysop at 04:22, 8 December 2025

2025-12-08T04:22:07Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:22, 8 December 2025
Line 17:		Line 17:

	Criminal Discovery Act doesn't apply. (Robert S. v. Superior Court (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 1417, 1422; In re Thomas F. (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 1429, 1254.) But sort of (Clinton K. v. Superior Court (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 1244, 1248.)		Criminal Discovery Act doesn't apply. (Robert S. v. Superior Court (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 1417, 1422; In re Thomas F. (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 1429, 1254.) But sort of (Clinton K. v. Superior Court (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 1244, 1248.)

			==Informal supervision==

			Court can order informal supervision over objection of probation officer (Raymond B. v. Superior Court (1980) 102 Cal.App.2d 372, 378-378) and over objection of prosecutor (Charles S. v. Superior Court (1982) 32 Cal.3d 741).

Sysop at 02:33, 8 December 2025

2025-12-08T02:33:31Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:33, 8 December 2025
Line 13:		Line 13:

	Nonsecure or home detention is not custody. (In re Randy J. (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 1497, 1506.)		Nonsecure or home detention is not custody. (In re Randy J. (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 1497, 1506.)

			Discovery is under Rules of Court rule 5.546

			Criminal Discovery Act doesn't apply. (Robert S. v. Superior Court (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 1417, 1422; In re Thomas F. (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 1429, 1254.) But sort of (Clinton K. v. Superior Court (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 1244, 1248.)

Sysop at 02:03, 8 December 2025

2025-12-08T02:03:20Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:03, 8 December 2025
Line 11:		Line 11:

	No right to jury trial (In re Myresheia W. (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 734, 741.)		No right to jury trial (In re Myresheia W. (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 734, 741.)

			Nonsecure or home detention is not custody. (In re Randy J. (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 1497, 1506.)

Sysop at 02:02, 8 December 2025

2025-12-08T02:02:28Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:02, 8 December 2025
Line 9:		Line 9:

	No right to bail. (Aubrey v. Gadbois (1975) 50 Cal.App.3d 470, 473		No right to bail. (Aubrey v. Gadbois (1975) 50 Cal.App.3d 470, 473

			No right to jury trial (In re Myresheia W. (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 734, 741.)

Sysop at 02:01, 8 December 2025

2025-12-08T02:01:47Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:01, 8 December 2025
Line 7:		Line 7:

	In re Travis J. (2013) 222 Cal.App.4th 187		In re Travis J. (2013) 222 Cal.App.4th 187

			No right to bail. (Aubrey v. Gadbois (1975) 50 Cal.App.3d 470, 473

Sysop at 01:44, 8 December 2025

2025-12-08T01:44:22Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:44, 8 December 2025
Line 1:		Line 1:
			A juvenile court may impose on a minor on probation “any and all reasonable conditions that it may determine fitting and proper to the end that justice may be done and the reformation and rehabilitation of the ward enhanced.” (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 730, subd. (b).) Generally, the conditions imposed on juveniles may be broader than criminal probation conditions. (In re Antonio R. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 937, 941.) In fact, “[a] juvenile court enjoys broad discretion to fashion conditions of probation for the purpose of rehabilitation and may even impose a
			condition of probation that would be unconstitutional or otherwise improper so long as it is tailored to specifically meet the needs of the juvenile.” (In re Binh L. (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 194, 203; In re Josh W. (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 1, 5; In re Sheena K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 875, 889; In re Michael D. (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 1610, 1616.) In planning the conditions of a minor’s supervision, the juvenile court considers not only the circumstances of the crime, but also the minor’s entire social history. (In re Binh L., supra, 5 Cal.App.4th 192, 203.) However, probation conditions may be void for vagueness or for being overbroad. “An order must be sufficiently precise for the probationer to know what is required of him, and for the court to determine whether the condition has been violated.” (People v. Reinerston (1986) 178 Cal.App.3d 320, 324- 325.)

			In People v. Lent (1975) 15 Cal.3d 481, the California Supreme Court articulated the following test to determine whether a probation condition constitutes an abuse of discretion: “A condition of probation will not be held invalid unless it ‘(1) has no relationship to the crime of which the offender was convicted, (2) relates to conduct which is not in itself criminal, and (3) requires or forbids conduct which is not reasonably related to future criminality.’” (Id. at p. 486.) “This test is conjunctive—all three prongs must be satisfied before a reviewing court will invalidate a probation term.” (People v. Olguin (2008) 45 Cal.4th 375, 379.) “As such, even if a condition of probation has no relationship to the crime of which a defendant was convicted and involves conduct that is not itself criminal, the condition is valid as long as the condition is reasonably related to preventing future criminality.” (Id. at pp. 379-380.)

			The Lent test applies to juvenile probation conditions. (In re P.O. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 288, 294; In re D.G. (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 47, 52.) In In re Ricardo P. (2019) 7 Cal.5th 1113, the California Supreme Court observed that “Lent’s requirement that a probation condition must be ‘reasonably related to future criminality’ contemplates a degree of proportionality between the burden imposed by a probation condition and the legitimate interests served by the condition.” (Id. at p. 1122.)

	In re Travis J. (2013) 222 Cal.App.4th 187		In re Travis J. (2013) 222 Cal.App.4th 187

Sysop: Created page with "In re Travis J. (2013) 222 Cal.App.4th 187"

2025-12-07T04:36:51Z

Created page with "In re Travis J. (2013) 222 Cal.App.4th 187"

New page

In re Travis J. (2013) 222 Cal.App.4th 187