Manuel P., In re

• Decision Date: 31 October 1989
• Docket Number: No. D006455,D006455
• Citation: 215 Cal.App.3d 48,263 Cal.Rptr. 447
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: In re MANUEL P., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MANUEL P., a Minor, Defendant and Appellant.

Page 447

263 Cal.Rptr. 447

215 Cal.App.3d 48

In re MANUEL P., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MANUEL P., a Minor, Defendant and Appellant.

No. D006455.

Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division 1, California.

Oct. 31, 1989.

Review Denied Feb. 21, 1990.

E. Stephen Temko, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for defendant and appellant

John K. Van de Kamp, Atty. Gen., Steve White, Chief Asst. Atty. Gen., Pat Zaharopolous and Carl H. Horst, Deputy Attys. Gen., for plaintiff and respondent.

Edwin L. Miller, Jr., Dist. Atty., Peter C. Lehman and Patricia L. Davis, Deputy Dist. Attys., Lloyd M. Harmon, Jr., County Counsel, San Diego, Daniel J. Wallace, Chief Deputy County Counsel, Gary C. Seiser, Deputy County Counsel, De Witt W. Clinton, County Counsel, and Philip H. Hickok, Deputy County Counsel, Los Angeles, amici curiae, for plaintiff and respondent.

BENKE, Associate Justice.

In this case the San Diego juvenile court, pursuant to power provided by Welfare and Institutions Code section 738 ¹ and procedures developed in cooperation with among other entities the federal government, ordered custody of a juvenile offender transferred to juvenile court officials in Mexico where the youth resides. On appeal we find the statute and procedures do not infringe upon federal prerogatives over immigration and foreign relations or the juvenile's constitutional rights. ²

BACKGROUND

Manuel S.P.

Appellant Manuel P. is an undocumented Mexican national who was first certified to Apparently Manuel, who was 18 years old at the time, remained in Tijuana, Mexico, until April 20, 1987, when a friend invited him to go to Los Angeles and visit the friend's aunt. They had not eaten for a day so while passing through San Diego they entered an unlocked residence and took food from a refrigerator. Manuel was observed by a neighbor and apprehended by police. He was charged in a section 602 petition with violating the terms of his probation in the previous case by entering this country illegally and attempting to burglarize an inhabited residence. At an adjudication hearing held on May 4, 1987, Manuel, represented by counsel, admitted the allegations of the petition. Upon recommendation of the prosecution the juvenile court struck the inhabited dwelling/residence allegations. The probation department again verified Manuel was an undocumented Mexican national whose parents resided in Culiacan, Mexico.

the San Diego juvenile court on February 24, 1987, for his part in stealing two bicycles. According to the probation report, Manuel and a companion used the bicycles for transportation and proceeded to burglarize residences. Manuel told the probation department his companion instigated the offenses. He had never before crossed into the United States illegally. Manuel explained that at the time of the offenses he was desperate, hungry and cold. All he wanted was to return home to Mexico. Following admission of one count of burglary, Manuel was declared a ward of the court and ordered not to return to this country illegally. He was then returned to Mexico.

On May 18, 1987, the juvenile court accepted the probation department's recommendation and ordered Manuel continued as a ward of the court under section 602. Custody was taken from his parents pursuant to section 726, subdivision (c), and he was ordered placed in a juvenile ranch facility at Campo, California, for a maximum of 240 days. During incarceration, visitation would be permitted with his family and upon completion of the ranch program he was to be returned to Mexico. Following his release to federal Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) officials, jurisdiction would be terminated.

On June 8, 1987, the probation department requested modification of Manuel's commitment in order that he be placed in the Border Youth Project, a local program by which he would be returned to officials of the juvenile court in Mexico. Following consideration of the request, the San Diego juvenile court vacated Manuel's camp commitment and pursuant to section 738, ordered him returned to officials of the Tijuana, Mexico, juvenile court. Counsel for Manuel expressed his concern that because Manuel was then 18 years old, Mexican officials might imprison him in an adult facility in Mexico which would give him little assistance and might well consign him to an unknown fate.

Nonetheless, the court ordered Manuel returned and recommended he receive "second-level" treatment, a term utilized by Tijuana juvenile authorities to designate placement of the minor at "La Granja" a state operated treatment facility which provides residential and counseling services. "La Granja" is a Mexican analog to the California Youth Honor Camp. The trial court recommended this placement because it was consistent with the court's initial recommendation.

In addition, the May 18, 1987, social study prepared for the San Diego juvenile court was ordered translated into Spanish and delivered to Mexican authorities. A future status update concerning the minor was ordered and the appointment of counsel was ordered to continue until statutory time for application of appeal had passed. All prior orders not in conflict were continued, including the one requiring Manuel be deported through the INS.

Prior to his departure from the United States, pursuant to the juvenile court's order, Manuel was released to federal immigration and naturalization officials. In accordance with guidelines then in effect, the probation department delivered Manuel to the INS together with a packet of information which contained a copy of (1) Manuel's As part of the INS procedure, Manuel was entitled to a formal deportation hearing which, if requested, would have required he be immediately placed in INS custody pending the hearing. Manuel was also entitled to waive the formal deportation hearing, which he did by executing INS Form I-274. ³

San Diego County Probation Department booking form; (2) an Immigration Detainer--Notice of Action received from the United States Department of Justice concerning appellant; (3) the San Diego juvenile court disposition order dated May 18, 1987; (4) the application for order dated June 8, 1987, (5) the disposition order [215 Cal.App.3d 55] dated June 17, 1987, and (6) the probation social study which had been translated into Spanish.

Having waived a formal deportation hearing, Manuel's deportation process was completed and he was delivered to the border where he was turned over to Tijuana juvenile court officials. Manuel was accompanied by a representative of the San Diego juvenile court, Steve Contreras, Senior Probation Officer of the San Diego County Probation Department. ⁴

Manuel signed his notice of appeal, June 19, 1987, two days prior to leaving the United States.

On March 6, 1988, a hearing was held to review Manuel's status. At that time the probation department informed the court that Manuel had been released to his parents and had been sent to his legal residence in Mexico. It was noted he would be 19 years of age on April 25, 1988, and there had been no further known contact with United States authorities. ⁵ Upon recommendation of the probation department, jurisdiction over Manuel was terminated.

Although the San Diego juvenile court and probation department had recommended second level treatment, i.e., camp, placement in Mexico, Manuel received first level treatment under which he was sent home to his parents.

The Border Youth Project

Because Manuel has challenged both the statute and local process by which he was returned to Mexican juvenile authorities, we feel it beneficial to set forth in some detail the origins, guidelines and expectations of the program by which his return was accomplished.

As early as 1981 the severity of juvenile crime along the border of Mexico was the focus of concern by congressional leaders, most of whom were representatives of border states. In a letter dated August 11, 1981, Texas Senator Lloyd Bentsen pointed out an estimated 3,000 to 6,000 juveniles would cross the border over the following year and commit offenses ranging from misdemeanors to major felonies. He expressed frustration that due to an absence of formal procedures for dealing with minors on an individual basis, and the inability of the federal government's border patrol to deal with the overwhelming magnitude of the legal and social problems involved, the general response of the border states was simply to return these juveniles to the border and release them. Senator Bentsen's letter, which was signed by 14 congressional representatives, implored the federal government to formulate a foreign policy to deal with the problem. He noted that, in the absence of such federal action, the border states would be forced to grope for alternative solutions.

Upon request of the United States State Department, in January 1982 Texas conducted a study concerning the problems of nonresident alien minors committing crimes in that state. The goal of this study was to determine if effective solutions to the problem of juvenile crime along the Texas/Mexico border could be found and if there were methods by which nonresident minors could be humanely dealt with and returned to their families. As a result of this study, the Texas Juvenile Probation Commission began a course of action resulting in attempts to solve the problems at a purely local level. These attempts, however, failed. In the words of one project report: "In seeking our own solution, the things we tried were often foolish, sometimes outrageous and were not effective. [p] We shaved the children's heads, we detained them in jail for long periods, we sent them far into the interior of Mexico. [p] In recent years they were usually released by the police at the bridge and often they would return immediately and commit new offenses, or they were committed to Texas correctional institutions where...