In re JOSE
Appellant Jose T. appeals from a jurisdictional and dispositional order in a Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 proceeding declaring wardship and committing him to the Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ). Appellant contends that the juvenile court abused its discretion by automatically imposing a suspended DJJ commitment. Appellant also argues the imposition of this sentence was improper because the court did not consider the appropriateness of less restrictive alternative placements or whether the placement would benefit him. Furthermore, appellant argues that his commitment order should be remanded to the juvenile court for it to determine whether he needs an individualized education plan (IEP). Lastly, appellant contends that his DJJ commitment should be modified in order to accurately reflect previous custody credits and to correct a clerical error. Court conclude that the juvenile court automatically, and erroneously, imposed a previously suspended DJJ commitment. Accordingly, Court vacate the commitment, remand, and direct the lower court to evaluate the appropriate placement for appellant, including whether to impose the previously suspended DJJ commitment, based upon current factors and circumstances.
Comments on In re JOSE