Jason J., In re, E007940
Court | California Court of Appeals |
Citation | 284 Cal.Rptr. 673,233 Cal.App.3d 710 |
Decision Date | 22 August 1991 |
Docket Number | No. E007940,E007940 |
Parties | In re JASON J., A Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JASON J., Defendant and Appellant. |
On March 27, 1990, a petition was filed alleging that minor Jason J. came within the provisions of Welfare and Institutions Code section 602. 1 The petition charged minor with robbery (Pen.Code, § 211) with a special allegation that a principal was armed with a firearm in the commission of the offense (Pen.Code, § 12022, subd. (a)). Minor admitted the robbery, and on the People's motion, the court dismissed the firearm allegation.
At the disposition hearing on April 13, 1990, minor was declared a ward of the court (§ 602) and placed in the custody of his parents. His probation included the following conditions, among others: to submit to urine testing at the request of the probation officer; to be home every evening by dark unless accompanied by his parents; and not to leave his residence before 6 a.m. except to go to work or school or to obtain emergency medical treatment. The probation order also required minor's parents to perform certain conditions: to cooperate with the probation officer and consult with him on request, to become involved with minor in a counseling program at the probation officer's direction and to become involved in an Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) program.
On appeal, minor contends that the conditions of probation requiring performance by his parents and those requiring him to be inside by dark and submit to urine testing were invalid.
Minor and several companions planned the robbery of a pizza delivery man. One of the boys ordered some pizzas, and when the delivery man arrived, the group approached the car. One of them opened the driver's door, and another, holding a sawed-off shotgun or rifle, opened the passenger door and demanded that the delivery man give them his money and the pizzas. The group took five pizzas, delivery bags and a money changer; the loss totalled $167.44.
Waiver of Objections. The People argue that minor waived objection to the conditions of his probation by failing to object at the disposition hearing. This court recently ruled that a failure to object to conditions of probation is not a waiver of a challenge to invalid conditions. (People v. Kiddoo (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 922, 925-928, 275 Cal.Rptr. 298; accord, People v. Hernandez (1991) 226 Cal.App.3d 1374, 1377, 277 Cal.Rptr. 444.) We decline to reconsider our ruling.
Review of Probation Conditions. The juvenile court has broad discretion in formulating conditions of probation. (In re Frankie J. (1988) 198 Cal.App.3d 1149, 1153, 244 Cal.Rptr. 254.) "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.) In planning such conditions, " (Frankie J., supra, at p. 1153, 244 Cal.Rptr. 254.) (Ibid.) We also consider the legislative policies for the juvenile court system when we determine the validity of probation conditions in a juvenile case.
Section 202 states, "(a) The purpose of this chapter is to provide for the protection and safety of the public and each minor under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court and to preserve and strengthen the minor's family ties whenever possible, removing the minor from the custody of his or her parents only when necessary for his or her welfare or for the safety and protection of the public...."
In addition, in enacting recent amendments to the code, the Legislature, in an uncodified preamble, stated: "(a) The Legislature finds and declares as follows:
Conditions Requiring Cooperation by and Involvement of Minor's Parents. Among minor's conditions of probation were the following:
Minor contends that those conditions were invalid. He argues that he faces a violation of probation if his parents fail to perform those conditions.
Section 729.2 explicitly provides for such conditions of probation: "If a minor is found to be a person described in Section 601 or 602 and the court does not remove the minor from the physical custody of the parent or guardian, the court as a condition of probation, except in any case in which the court makes a finding and states on the record its reasons that that condition would be inappropriate, shall:
In Charles S. v. Superior Court (1982) 32 Cal.3d 741, 187 Cal.Rptr. 144, 653 P.2d 648, a minor was placed on voluntary informal probation under section 654. On appeal, a probation condition requiring restitution was ordered stricken because the minor and his family were indigent. The court stated, (Id. at p. 748, 187 Cal.Rptr. 144, 653 P.2d 648.) The court observed, however, that no rehabilitative purpose could be served by requiring the minor to do something he was incapable of doing. Thus, the court struck the condition notbecause it required the minor's parents to participate, but because the parents were financially unable to meet the condition.
Although the court in Charles S. discussed voluntary informal probation under section 654, similar policies apply to formal probation under section 727. The success of both programs depends in part, on the parents' willingness to assume responsibility for providing help and guidance to the minor.
Here, the probation report indicated, In light of the specific statutory authorization for requiring parental counseling as a condition of probation, we find no error. Such parental involvement is intended to promote...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Tyrell J., In re, S030266
...the minor on probation, "[t]he juvenile court has broad discretion in formulating conditions of probation." (In re Jason J. (1991) 233 Cal.App.3d 710, 714, 284 Cal.Rptr. 673, disapproved on other grounds, People v. Welch (1993) 5 Cal.4th 228, 237, 19 Cal.Rptr.2d 520, 851 P.2d 802; see Welf.......
-
People v. Welch, S025387
...of a probation condition on appeal. (People v. Patillo (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 1576, 1579, 6 Cal.Rptr.2d 456; In re Jason J. (1991) 233 Cal.App.3d 710, 714, 284 Cal.Rptr. 673; People v. Hernandez (1991) 226 Cal.App.3d 1374, 1377, 277 Cal.Rptr. 444; People v. Kiddoo (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 922, 9......
-
People v. Nassetta, A144049
...California a curfew condition is permissible for a minor on probation. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 729.2, subd. (c) ; In re Jason J . (1991) 233 Cal.App.3d 710, 719, 284 Cal.Rptr. 673, disapproved on another point in People v. Welch (1993) 5 Cal.4th 228, 19 Cal.Rptr.2d 520, 851 P.2d 802.) But “[......
-
People v. Welch, C008740
...444, decided by the Fifth District, as well as People v. Kiddoo (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 922, 275 Cal.Rptr. 298 and In re Jason J. (1991) 233 Cal.App.3d 710, 284 Cal.Rptr. 673, decided by the Fourth District, hold that a failure to object to probation conditions does not waive the right to cha......
-
Punishment
...AA Attendance A court may not require a third party to attend AA as a condition of the defendant’s probation. In re Jason J . (1991) 233 Cal.App.3d 710. However, defendant must object to the unreasonable probation condition and may not argue the unreasonableness of it for the first time on ......
-
Table of cases
...7:48, 7:62 In re James D. (1987) 43 Cal.3d 903, §§7:11.1, 11:211 In re James M. (1977) 72 Cal.App.3d 133, §8:21 In re Jason J. (1991) 233 Cal.App.3d 710, §10:27.3 In re Jennifer S. (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 64, §1:16.3 In re J.G .(2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 402, §7:11.2 In re J.G. (2016) 3 Cal.App.......