Demetrus H., In re

• Decision Date: 05 May 1981
• Docket Number: Cr. 39210
• Citation: 118 Cal.App.3d 805,173 Cal.Rptr. 627
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: In re DEMETRUS H., a minor, on Habeas Corpus.

Page 627

173 Cal.Rptr. 627

118 Cal.App.3d 805

In re DEMETRUS H., a minor, on Habeas Corpus.

Cr. 39210.

Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 4, California.

May 5, 1981.

Hearing Denied August 19, 1981.

Wilbur F. Littlefield, Los Angeles County Public Defender, Kenneth J. Clayman, Valerie Monroe and Jack T. Weedin, Deputy Public Defenders, for petitioner.

George Deukmejian, Atty. Gen., Robert H. Philibosian, Chief Asst. Atty. Gen., S. Clark Moore, Asst. Atty. Gen., Howard J. Schwab and Beverly K. Falk, Deputy Attys. Gen., for respondent.

FILES, Presiding Justice.

This is a petition for writ of habeas corpus brought by a 17 year old ward of the juvenile court asking relief from that portion of a disposition order that requires him to serve five to ten days in juvenile hall as a condition of probation.

On October 31, 1980, a petition filed in the juvenile court under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 was sustained pursuant to a stipulation whereby the charge of assault with a deadly weapon in violation of Penal Code section 245, subdivision (a), was amended to allege use of hands in lieu of a metal pipe, and the offense was reduced to a misdemeanor. Other charges were dismissed "pursuant to case settlement." The minor was declared a ward of the juvenile court and released to the custody of his mother pending the disposition hearing set for November 24, 1980.

On that date the court placed the minor on home probation with certain conditions, one of which was that he first spend "not less than five and no more than ten days Ricardo M. time in Juvenile Hall." ¹ This confinement was stayed until December 26.

Petitioner's counsel objected that sending the minor to juvenile hall would be punishment. The court then explained its ruling as follows:

"I think Demetrus is being given the best of all there is to offer here by being permitted to remain in the community with a minimal bit of seven days (preadjudication detention) plus five days in Juvenile Hall when you consider the nature of the offense involved. I think it needs to be planted very firmly in his mind that what he has done is wrong and to give him some very good idea of what is anticipated if he does it again. I do intend the additional time as punishment.

"I feel at this point additional punishment would be therapeutic. I don't find that it is totally contrary to the juvenile concepts set forth in the Welfare and Institutions Code which also indicates a need for the protection of the community."

The court inquired about the minor's school situation and then fixed December 26 as the date on which the confinement was to commence. The court stated "December 26th is a Friday. You should be out the following Tuesday if you obey all of the rules."

The present petition for writ of habeas corpus was filed in this court December 22, 1980, and was immediately considered. An order denying the petition was filed on December 23. On the same day, upon the request of petitioner, the juvenile court stayed the confinement to January 2, 1981.

On December 29 a petition for hearing was filed in the Supreme Court and on December 30 that court made an order staying the detention of petitioner. On January 29 it granted the minor's petition for hearing and ordered the Chief Probation Officer of Los Angeles County to file a written return with this court. We placed the matter on the first calendar after the time needed for a return, replication and pre-calendar review.

The sole legal issue argued by petitioner is "Juvenile Hall detention cannot be imposed where it is punitive." The basis of the argument is the juvenile court's use of the word "punitive," although the court went on to explain that the purpose was therapeutic. Counsel for petitioner relies upon a host of cases which emphasize the unquestioned principle that juvenile proceedings are designed for the purposes of rehabilitation and treatment, not punishment.

The purpose of the Juvenile Court Law is stated in Welfare and Institutions Code section 202, subdivision (a), as amended in 1977:

"The purpose of this chapter is to secure for each minor under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court such care and guidance, preferably in his own home, as will serve the spiritual, emotional, mental, and physical welfare of the minor and the best interests of the state; to protect the public from criminal conduct by minors; to impose on the minor a sense of responsibility for his own acts; to preserve and strengthen the minor's family ties whenever possible, removing him from the custody of his parents only when necessary for his welfare or for the safety and protection of the public; ... This chapter shall be liberally construed to carry out these purposes."

Unquestionably, punishment for its own sake is not one of the objectives of the juvenile justice system. But it does not follow that anything which may be characterized as "punishment" is necessarily inconsistent with the purpose of the law. Any judicial interference with the life-style of a delinquent minor is in a sense punitive, and is likely to be so regarded by...