Debra A., In re, Cr. 26517

• Citation: 121 Cal.Rptr. 757,48 Cal.App.3d 327
• Decision Date: 20 May 1975
• Docket Number: Cr. 26517
• Court: California Court of Appeals
• Parties: In re DEBRA A., a minor on habeas corpus.

Page 757

121 Cal.Rptr. 757

48 Cal.App.3d 327

In re DEBRA A., a minor on habeas corpus.

Cr. 26517.

Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 5, California.

May 20, 1975.

Michael Kogan, Los Angeles, for the Minor.

John H. Larson, County Counsel, and William F. Stewart, Principal Deputy County Counsel, Los Angeles, for respondent Clarence E. Cabell, Acting Los Angeles County Chief Probation Officer.

STEPHENS, Associate Justice.

The petition before us is on behalf of Debra A., who is now 18 years old and at the time of the offense involved, was 17. The Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 petition alleged that the minor had violated Penal Code section 484f, subdivision (2) (forgery of credit card).

The incident giving rise to the filing of the 602 petition occurred on August 13, 1974, when the minor and her mother entered a store and attempted to purchase some rifles worth approximately $324.38 with a stolen BankAmericard. Upon on admission by the minor, the juvenile court, on January 9, 1974, found that the allegations of the petition were true and ordered that the minor be declared a ward of the court under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602. At the disposition proceedings on January 29, 1975, the court ordered that the minor be suitably placed at the home of her aunt 'with the exception that the minor shall be placed in a juvenile home, ranch, camp, forestry camp or County Juvenile Hall from Saturday at 5:00 p.m. to Monday at 8:00 a.m. for five consecutive weekends commencing February 1, 1975.' The time of the weekend placement was selected by the court after the minor represented that she worked on Saturdays.

The probation officer's report filed with the court indicated that the minor came from a highly delinquent family, with two of her brothers being currently 602 wards of the court and in suitable placements. The minor's mother, who was also arrested with the minor on the same charge, was on probation at the time for another forgery offense.

The habeas corpus petiton before us alleges that the portion of the court's disposition that ordered the minor into a juvenile facility under Welfare and Institutions Code sections 730 and 731 for five weekends was in excess of the juvenile court's authority. (See also Welf. & Inst.Code, § 727.)

Respondent tactfully concedes that the 'commitment on weekends possesses to some extent the attributes of punishment,' then argues that this is within the rehabilitative goals of juvenile law.

There can be no doubt that the judge intended the weekend custody to be a punitive measure. At the disposition hearing, the judge stated: 'It would not be my intention to follow the recommendations (of the probation officer) precisely, although in a general way, I would be following it. I have in mind some conditions of probation which would be of a punitive nature aimed at deterring the minor from further activity of this sort.' (Emphasis added.) One of the attorneys involved in the hearing stated: 'I don't think any placement would help her at this time. She's got to realize that when she's 18 years of age (in two weeks from the date of that hearing) and she gets in trouble, she faces jail time, she's not facing home on probation.' The court then formulated its order, pronouncing: 'For five consecutive weekends commencing Saturday, February 1st at 5 p.m. until--commencing Saturday, February 1st and the five weekends will run from . . . Saturday at 5 p.m. to Monday at 8 a.m. and during those periods of time, the minor is removed from the physicial...