In re James S.
Filed 4/26/07 In re James S. CA1/5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FIVE
In re JAMES S., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | |
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JAMES S., Defendant and Appellant. | A113582 (SonomaCounty Super. Ct. No. J33432) |
Appellant James S. contends that the trial court erred by entering a commitment order that includes a provision allowing the county probation department to decide whether to place appellant in juvenile hall for up to 120 days, without a further hearing or order of the court. The People concede error in this respect. We therefore remand to the trial court with instructions to strike this improper provision from the juvenile courts order.
I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The issue raised on appeal does not concern the facts of the offenses that originally led to the issuance of the orders under review. In brief, appellants father found three rifles and numerous other weapons and rounds of ammunition in appellants room, when appellant was away. He summoned the police. The next day, appellant was arrested at a motel, and live ammunition was found in his room, together with some Ecstasy tablets.
Appellant later admitted two counts alleged in a juvenile wardship petition, charging that he had possessed live ammunition, and a controlled substance.
The juvenile court subsequently entered a commitment order on March 30, 2006, stating that appellant should be placed at a youth camp, the Sonoma County Probation Camp, also known as the Departmental Commitment Program or DCP. Included in the courts commitment order is a provision indicating that the probation department could decide whether to remove appellant from the camp and place appellant in juvenile hall for a period of up to 120 days, without a further hearing or order of the court.
II. DISCUSSION
Appellant contends, and the People concede, that the trial court improperly ordered that the probation department could determine whether to remove appellant from the court-ordered placement at the camp, and instead place appellant in juvenile hall for up to 120 days, without a further hearing or order of the court. Such a provision has been held to violate a minors right to a determination by a court as to whether there is a need for a placement in juvenile hall. (In re Gerald B. (1980) 105 Cal.App.3d 119, 126-127; In re Debra A. (1975) 48 Cal.App.3d 327, 330; see Welf. & Inst. Code, 730, subd. (a), 737.)
Therefore, in light of the applicable case law and the concession of error by the People, we must remand with instructions to vacate this provision in the juvenile courts commitment order.
III. DISPOSITION
The matter is remanded to the juvenile court, with instructions to strike the provision in the juvenile courts commitment order that authorizes the probation department to place appellant in juvenile hall for up to 120 days without further order of the court.
NEEDHAM, J.
We concur.
SIMONS, Acting P. J.
GEMELLO, J.
Publication Courtesy of San Diego County Legal Resource Directory.
Analysis and review provided by El Cajon Property line attorney.