People v. J.C. (In re J.C.)

In re J.C., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. J.C., Defendant and Appellant.

H047569

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

August 31, 2020

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

(Monterey County Super. Ct. Nos. 19JV000824, 19JV000832)

Pursuant to a plea agreement, the juvenile court sustained seven charges and found jurisdiction over the minor, J.C. Five of the charges were so-called "wobblers," alleged as felonies, and two were misdemeanors.¹ The juvenile court declared J.C. a ward of the court, confined him in juvenile hall, and ordered probation supervision with multiple conditions. The conditions included a directive on the length of J.C.'s hair andrestrictions on his freedom to visit locations with known gang-related activity, associate with known gang members, probationers, or parolees, and change his residence or leave the state without permission.

On appeal, J.C. contends the juvenile court erred by failing to consider whether it should exercise discretion to sustain the wobblers as misdemeanors rather than felonies. In addition, he claims that the juvenile court erred by imposing probation conditions that were unreasonable or unconstitutionally vague or overbroad.

For reasons that we will explain, we reverse the dispositional order and remand the matter for the juvenile court to declare whether J.C.'s wobbler offenses are felonies or misdemeanors and strike the probation condition dictating J.C.'s hair length.

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A. Procedural History

On September 16, 2019,² the Monterey County District Attorney filed a wardship petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, subdivision (a), alleging that J.C. took a vehicle without the owner's consent and with the intent to permanently or temporarily deprive the owner of title and possession (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd (a); count 1 [felony]), bought, received, concealed, sold or withheld stolen property (Pen. Code, § 496d, subd. (a)³; count 2 [felony]), resisted, delayed or obstructed an officer (§ 148, subd. (a)(1); count 3 [misdemeanor]), and committed trespass by entering and occupying real property and a structure (§ 602, subd. (m); count 4 [misdemeanor]). (Case No. 19JV000824.)

On September 17, the district attorney filed another wardship petition alleging that J.C. committed assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(4); counts 1 & 2 [felonies]), evaded, fled or otherwise attempted to elude a pursuing peace officer while driving with willful wanton disregard for safety (Veh. Code,§ 2800.2, subd. (a); count 3 [felony]), took a vehicle without the owner's consent and with the intent to permanently or temporarily deprive the owner of title and possession (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd (a); count 4 [felony]), bought, received, concealed, sold or withheld stolen property (§ 496d, subd. (a); count 5 [felony]), and injured, caused or permitted a child to suffer injury under circumstances likely to produce great bodily harm or death while having the care and custody of the child (§ 273a, subd. (a); count 6 [felony]). (Case No. 19JV000832.)

At an uncontested joint jurisdictional hearing on October 7, the juvenile court, pursuant to a negotiated resolution, dismissed count 2 in case number 19JV000824, and counts 5 and 6 in case number 19JV000832. J.C. admitted the remaining seven counts alleged in the petitions. Mirroring the petitions, the juvenile court indicated on the record and in its minute order that count 3 (resisting an officer) and count 4 (trespass) in case number 19JV000824, were misdemeanors, and the other admitted counts were felonies.⁴ Further, in the written jurisdictional order, a box is checked next to the following preprinted statement: "The court has considered whether the above offense(s) should be felonies or misdemeanors." The juvenile court, however, did not mention on the record at the jurisdictional hearing that it considered the wobbler designation issue.

At a dispositional hearing on October 22, the juvenile court declared J.C. a ward of the court, committed him to juvenile hall for 403 days (with 38 days of credit for time served), and ordered wardship and probation supervision with conditions until January, 2027 (when J.C. turns 23 years old). In the written dispositional order, a box is checked next to a preprinted finding regarding the admitted charges that states, "The court previously sustained the following counts. Any charges which may be considered amisdemeanor or a felony for which [the] court has not previously specified the level of offense are now determined to be as follows." Below that statement, there is a list of the seven admitted counts indicating, in accord with the previous designations, that counts 3 and 4 in case number 19JV000824 are misdemeanors and the five other counts are felonies. The juvenile court, however, did not mention this determination of the offense status on the record at the dispositional hearing.

B. Factual Background⁵

On August 13, a security guard saw J.C. drinking beer and smoking marijuana in a laundry room at an apartment complex. The guard warned J.C. to stay away from the complex or he would be arrested for trespass. The next day, the same guard saw J.C. urinating from a window of the laundry room and detained him. Police cited J.C., transported him home, and released him to his mother.

On August 26, a police officer saw a parked car that he recognized as stolen. As the officer got out of his car, the driver of the stolen vehicle got out as well. The officer directed the driver to get back in the vehicle, instead he fled. A female passenger in the vehicle identified the driver as J.C. Police later found J.C. walking in the area and directed him to stop, but he again fled. After catching up to J.C., police cited him and released him to his mother.

On September 15, police attempted to stop a vehicle believed to be stolen. The vehicle accelerated and drove away. As police pursued, the vehicle drove past a sign in the center of the roadway indicating there was a road closure ahead because of a festival. The vehicle "rammed and broke through the barriers" outside the crowded festival, and "multiple civilians began diving out of the way to avoid being hit." The vehicle swerved, hit a stroller carrying a 2-year-old child, and struck a 6-year-old boy. J.C. got out of thecar and fled. Bystanders chased and detained him. Police arrested J.C. and found "two shaved keys" when searching him.

J.C.'s mother told the probation officer that J.C. began running away regularly in the summer of 2019, and "would be gone for two or three days." J.C.'s mother and father looked for him when he ran away, and his mother had called J.C.'s girlfriend and other friends but they did not respond to her calls. She said J.C. had three adult friends who she and J.C.'s father tried to prevent from spending time with J.C. J.C. again ran away from home on September 14—the day before he committed the offenses at the festival.

J.C. admitted truancy and staying in the homes of his adult friends when he had run away. He said he "runs away from home to 'go party and look for cars.' " J.C. also admitted to "associating with Sureño gang members for about one or two years."

II. DISCUSSION

J.C. raises two claims on appeal. He contends the juvenile court erred by failing to consider whether it should exercise discretion to sustain the wobblers as misdemeanors rather than felonies. In addition, he claims that the juvenile court erred by imposing certain probation conditions that were unreasonable or unconstitutionally vague or overbroad. We address J.C.'s claims in turn.

A. Wobbler Offenses

J.C. admitted five wobbler offenses that were charged as felonies. (See § 245, subd. (a)(4) [counts 1 & 2 (case No. 19JV000832)]; Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a) [count 1 (case No. 19JV000824); count 4 (case No. 19JV000832)]; Veh. Code, § 2800.2, subd. (a) [count 3 (case No. 19JV000832)]).

Welfare and Institutions Code section 702 states in relevant part: "If the minor is found to have committed an offense which would in the case of an adult be punishable alternatively as a felony or a misdemeanor, the court shall declare the offense to be a misdemeanor or felony." The California Supreme Court has explained that, under this provision, the juvenile court is required to make an "explicit declaration" whether awobbler offense is a felony or a misdemeanor. (In re Manzy W. (1997) 14 Cal.4th 1199, 1204, 1207 (Manzy W.); see also Cal. Rules of Court, rules 5.780(e)(5), 5.795(a).) "This declaration must be made at or before disposition." (In re G.C. (2020) 8 Cal.5th 1119, 1125 (G.C.).) Moreover, the requirement applies even when a minor admits the offense because the "minor's admission of a wobbler offense charged as a felony is not an 'adjudication' of the misdemeanor or felony status of that offense." (In re Nancy C. (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 508, 512.)

The purpose of the statutory requirement is "twofold:" "it helps determine the length of any present or future confinement for a wobbler offense" and " it 'ensur[es] that the juvenile court is aware of, and actually exercises, its discretion under . . . [Welfare and Institutions Code] section 702.' " (G.C., supra, 8 Cal.5th at p. 1125.) "It is not sufficient that the offenses were identified as felonies in the wardship petitions and in the minute order of the jurisdictional hearing, or that they were treated as felonies for purposes of calculating the maximum term of confinement." (Ibid.) "If the court did not make the required express determination, but the record shows...