People v. D.N. (In re D.N.)

14 Cal.5th 202

520 P.3d 1167

301 Cal.Rptr.3d 801

IN RE D.N., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

The People, Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.D.N., Defendant and Appellant.

S268437

Supreme Court of California.

December 12, 2022

Elizabeth Campbell, under appointment by the Supreme Court, and Sangeeta Sinha, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Xavier Becerra and Rob Bonta, Attorneys General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Darren K. Indermill, Rachelle A. Newcomb and Kari Ricci Mueller, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Opinion of the Court by Cantil-Sakauye, C. J.

After determining that D.N., a minor, was within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court because of his violation of criminal laws ( Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602 ),¹ the court adjudged D.N. (hereafter minor) to be a ward of the court and ordered him to reside in his parent or guardian's home under several conditions of probation. The court further ordered: "Probation is authorized to offer the minor up to 50 hours of community service, or up to a cumulative total of 10 days on the community service work program as an option to work off alleged probation violations."

On appeal, minor attacks this provision of the court's dispositional order as a constitutionally improper delegation of judicial authority to the probation department and as a deprivation of due process. Both challenges rest on the premise that the court's order allowed the probation department itself to determine that the minor had violated his probation and to impose community service as a sanction for the violation. We reject that premise and the constitutional challenges based on it. The juvenile court did not authorize the probation officer to adjudicate violations or impose sanctions for them, but only to "offer" minor the "option" of performing community service when a violation is "alleged." In effect, the juvenile court gave its advance approval to an agreement that might be reached between minor and the probation officer for the performance of a certain amount of community service in lieu of having an alleged probation violation adjudicated in a judicial proceeding. The court's order did not thereby improperly delegate any part of the judicial function to the probation officer, nor did it deprive minor of any judicial process constitutionally due him. Under the challenged provision, minor remained free to reject any offer the probation department made and to invoke the ordinary statutory procedures for adjudication of an alleged probation violation.

I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The People brought a juvenile wardship petition under section 602, subdivision (a), alleging minor had committed one count of violating Penal Code section 288.5 (continuous sexual abuse of a child under 14 years of age). The juvenile court found the allegation true after a contested jurisdictional hearing. At the hearing on disposition, the court adjudged minor a ward of the court and determined his maximum period of confinement was 16 years. In order that minor could enter a sex offender treatment program as soon as possible, however, the court declined to impose any initial period of confinement. Instead, the court placed minor on probation, ordered him to remain on G.P.S. supervision for at least three months, and imposed other conditions of probation including participation in a long-term sex offender program, school attendance, a curfew, a restitution fine, restrictions on his association with others, and search conditions.

In the portion of its disposition at issue here, the court orally ordered: "The Court is granting probation in this matter. And the Court is authorizing the Probation Department [to] offer the minor community service, up to 50 hours of community service, up to a cumulative total of 10 days, to work off any alleged probation violations. That can also include the GPS system as a sanction, up to 30 days, but he'd already be on that program." The court continued: "I would anticipate if there's any significant violation of any term and condition of the grant of probation here, that he would be brought back to court for additional recommendations, which most likely would include [a] substantial amount of time in custody." The court's written dispositional order included the same provision for community service, though with some additional language, italicized below: "Probation is authorized to offer the minor up to 50 hours of community service, or up to a cumulative total of 10 days on the community service work program as an option to work off alleged probation violations. Minor to remain on GPS for 3 months." This provision appears to have been drawn from a standard order option on the juvenile court's delinquency minute order form (not selected by the court in this case), which reads: "The Court authorizes the Probation Department to offer the minor community service up to 50 hours as an option to work off alleged probation violations in lieu of being brought back before the court."

The Court of Appeal rejected minor's claims that the community service provision violated separation of powers principles and infringed his due process rights.² Citing In re Gabriel T. (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 952, 958, 207 Cal.Rptr.3d 821, the appellate court acknowledged that a juvenile court may not delegate to a probation officer the authority to determine that a minor is in violation of probation. But in this case, the court held, the juvenile court's order did not permit the probation department "to decide if and when a violation of probation had occurred. ... Instead, the court permitted the probation officer to offer appellant the option of community service for an alleged violation. The juvenile court set the basic condition, but it left the specific details to the probation officer and appellant to resolve." The Court of Appeal also rejected minor's challenges to several other probation conditions but struck an AIDS testing condition subject to presentation of additional evidence concerning its validity. In all other respects, the appellate court affirmed the dispositional order.

We will affirm the Court of Appeal's judgment.

II. DISCUSSION

The challenge here is to a juvenile court order authorizing the probation officer to offer a minor on probation the option of performing community service, in an amount chosen by the probation officer up to a maximum set by the court, in the event the minor is alleged to have violated a term of probation. Minor contends this provision "not only permits the probation officer to unilaterally find appellant in violation of probation, but also to choose the appropriate sanction for any alleged violation." He maintains that the juvenile court's delegation of these assertedly judicial functions — adjudicating violations of probation and imposing sanctions for them — violates both due process and separation of powers principles.

Before addressing minor's arguments, we outline the roles of the court and the probation officer regarding juvenile offenders on probation supervision.

When a minor has been adjudged a ward of the juvenile court because of delinquency under section 602 and placed under the supervision of a probation officer, the court "may impose and require 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." ( § 730, subd. (b).) A few basic conditions involving education and curfew are generally required, absent a finding of inappropriateness, of all wards who are not removed from their parent or guardian's physical custody ( § 729.2 ), while other conditions are specifically mandated or authorized under certain circumstances or for violations of certain criminal laws (see, e.g., §§ 729, 729.1, 729.3, 729.6, 729.8 ). Aside from those required conditions, the juvenile court retains significant flexibility to fashion its rehabilitative mandates and conditions. "The statutory scheme governing juvenile delinquency is designed to give the court ‘maximum flexibility to craft suitable orders aimed at rehabilitating the particular ward before it.’ " ( In re Greg F. (2012) 55 Cal.4th 393, 411, 146 Cal.Rptr.3d 272, 283 P.3d 1160.)

After disposition, the juvenile court retains the authority to modify its orders regarding a minor under its jurisdiction ( § 775 ), and a parent, the minor through a guardian ad litem, or another person having an interest in the minor may petition the court for a modification ( § 778 ). The probation officer or public prosecutor may also seek a modification from the court. ( § 777, subd. (a)(2).) A modification that involves removal of the minor from the custody of a parent, guardian, relative or friend and placement in foster care or commitment to confinement must be pursued by the notice and hearing procedures set out in section 777. At the hearing, the facts alleged in the notice must be proved by a preponderance of the evidence. (Id. , subd. (c).) If the probation officer proposes a modification that does not call for removal from parental custody or commitment to confinement, the officer may seek modification through a petition under section 778. ( Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.560(e)(1) ; In re Glen J. (1979) 97 Cal.App.3d 981, 984–986, 159 Cal.Rptr. 148.)

Under California's general municipal law, a county's chief probation officer is appointed by the judges of the superior court, and the charter of Fresno County, where this case arises, is to the same effect. ( § 270 ; Gov. Code, § 27770 ; Fresno County Charter (as amended June 5, 2018), § 21.) The probation officer's duties include "[c]ommunity supervision of offenders subject to the jurisdiction of the juvenile court pursuant to [Welfare & Institutions Code] Section 602" ( Gov. Code, § 27771, subd. (a)(1) ), and in performing that function the probation...