In Juvenile Case, WIC 782 Is Analogous to PC 1385
In August 2022, J.P. (a juvenile over age 14) met a woman in San Bernardino County under the pretense of wanting to buy her iPhone. Instead, he pulled a gun on her, took the phone, and ran away. Police apprehended J.P. while he was driving and found a loaded gun in his car.
The same month, the San Bernardino County District Attorney filed a petition against J.P. alleging violations of Penal Code §§ 211 (second degree robbery), 245(a)(2) (assault with a firearm) and 25850(a) and (c)(6) (carrying a loaded firearm not registered to him in a vehicle). J.P. was found to be a ward of the court under Welfare & Institutions Code § 602 for these charges.
In November 2022, Judge Tony Raphael held a contested jurisdictional hearing and found all the allegations true and sustained the petition.
Judge Raphael, in a dispositional hearing later that month, indicated his intention to commit J.P. to a secure youth treatment facility (SYTF).
J.P. objected, arguing that Welfare & Institutions Code (WIC) § 875 precludes commitment to an SYTF unless the juvenile’s most recent offense is listed under WIC § 707(b) and J.P.’s most recent offense, the gun possession, was not.
After some discussion, the People moved to dismiss the gun possession offense under WIC § 782.
J.P. also objected to the People’s motion to dismiss, arguing that under WIC § 782, the judge only had the power to strike the entire petition, not just one count.
The judge, citing In re J.B. (2022) 75 Cal. App. 5th 410 and People v. Marsh (1984) 36 Cal. 3d 134, concluded otherwise and dismissed the gun offense. It then committed J.P. to an SYTF.
J.P. then appealed to the California Court of Appeal for the Fourth District in Riverside, which affirmed the trial court.
The Fourth Appellate District began its analysis by reviewing WIC § 875, which states “a court may order that a ward who is 14 years of age or older be committed to a secure youth treatment facility . . . if the ward meets certain criteria.” First, the juvenile must be adjudicated and found to be a ward of the court based on an offense listed in WIC § 707(b). Second, the relevant adjudication must be “the most recent offense for which the juvenile has been adjudicated.” WIC § 875(a)(2).
As to whether the judge’s dismissal of the gun charge was proper, the Fourth Appellate District found that no court has addressed whether WIC § 782 permits a court to dismiss part of a petition without dismissing the entire petition.
However, it is well established that Penal Code § 1385 “permits a judge to dismiss not only an entire case, but also a part thereof.” People v. Superior Court (Romero) 13 Cal. 4th 497, 508.
However, in dicta, the California Supreme Court has endorsed an idea that a court dismiss individual counts of a petition exactly like the judge did in this case. In re Greg F. (2012) 55 Cal. 4th 393, 416, the court commented that “similar to section 782, Penal Code section 1385 grants the trial courts the power to dismiss a criminal action in the furtherance of justice.” Greg F. concerned a commitment of a juvenile to the Department of Juvenile Facilities (DJF).
Greg F. continued, stating “[i]n determining whether a [Welfare and Institutions Code] section 782 dismissal is ‘in the interests of justice,’ some courts have looked to Penal Code section 1385 for guidance.” Greg F., at 416. Later, in the same opinion, it was noted that a court has the power under 782 to dismiss a 602 petition “in whole or in part.” Greg F. at 423.
Accordingly, the Fourth Appellate District found that the juvenile court’s authority to set aside any part of the petition was authorized under WIC § 782 and therefore affirmed the trial court.
We bring this summary to the reader’s attention because the parallels between adult court and the juvenile court are strong, but not perfect. Here, the juvenile pointed out correctly that no court had permitted a judge to dismiss part of a petition under 782, like Penal Code § 1385 allows. Therefore, while J.P. lost in this case, his challenge to the court’s authority is a good reminder to think carefully about what a judge is doing under the Welfare & Institutions Code because it may not be entirely analogous to the Penal Code.
For more information about juvenile court proceedings, please click on the following articles:
Client Reviews
★★★★★
"Thank you so much for putting so much effort in this case. We really appreciate it and we are happy that all turned out well." S.A., Torrance
★★★★★
"Greg Hill did an outstanding job on every level. He was efficient, thorough, knowledgeable, courteous, responsive & brilliant. He welcomed my input and my concerns. . . from the first conversation to the last - I always felt 'it mattered' to him." S.C., Rolling Hills Estates
★★★★★
"Thanks again for your hard work. We want you to know that we are very appreciative of all that you have done [on our son's] behalf. With warmest regards." L.H., Torrance
★★★★★
"Dear Greg, Thank you again for all your help. Your professionalism and thoroughness is greatly admired. I will definitely recommend you to my friends if they ever need legal help." V.L., Carson
★★★★★
"Thanks for investing in my case. I talked to other attorneys out there and they had an arms-length of attitude, but not you. Your intensity and interest helped a lot." C.R., Pomona