Mark M., In re
| Decision Date | 28 August 1980 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 37254 |
| Citation | 109 Cal.App.3d 873,167 Cal.Rptr. 461 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | In re MARK ALLEN M., a Minor, On Habeas Corpus. |
Wilbur F. Littlefield, Public Defender of Los Angeles County, California, Kenneth I. Clayman, George Clark, Henry J. Hall, Deputy Public Defenders, for the minor.
Petitioner was declared a ward of the court pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 after he admitted burglarizing a high school. He was placed home on probation on various terms and conditions including performing 100 hours of community service, attending school regularly, and spending 10 days in juvenile hall, so-called Ricardo M. time. 1 An additional 20 days of Ricardo M. time was stayed until March 23, 1979. On the latter date 10 days' detention was imposed because petitioner had failed to complete performance of the community service and was not attending school regularly. 2
On June 21, 1979, petitioner was arraigned on a supplemental petition (Welf. & Inst.Code § 777) alleging continued failure to comply with the conditions of probation as to community service and school attendance. This petition was sustained on July 31, 1979. The terms of probation were modified by eliminating the community service provision, adding a $50.00 fine, and imposing an additional 25 days of Ricardo M. time, of which two days were to be served immediately. The remaining 23 days were stayed on condition that petitioner not miss any school. The matter was calendared for further hearing on January 31, 1980. On the latter date, because of petitioner's continued refusal to attend school, the court imposed the additional 23 days' Ricardo M. time in conformity with the recommendation of a supplemental probation report. 3
The within petition, challenging the order imposing the additional 23 days of Ricardo M. time, raises two issues: (1) whether a Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 ward can be placed in juvenile hall detention solely for truancy; and (2) whether imposition of Ricardo M. time can be stayed and then imposed without following the procedural requirements of Welfare and Institutions Code section 777.
The first issue was adjudicated in In re Gerald B., 105 Cal.App.3d 119, 164 Cal.Rptr. 193, a case decided after we issued our order to show cause in the instant matter, but prior to oral argument. We agree with the conclusion reached in Gerald B. When regular school attendance is made a condition of probation following a Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 determination of wardship, based upon a Penal Code violation, time in custody may be imposed for a violation of the probationary condition.
We come now to the second issue presented, the appropriate procedural method of imposing time in custody for violation of such a condition of probation. In re Gerald B., supra, involved facts similar, but not identical to, those before us. The original disposition order in Gerald B. provided that if the minor missed a day of school he would spend the following weekend in juvenile hall; if he missed more than one day of school in any one week, he would spend the remainder of the week and the weekend in juvenile hall. The order was to be enforced by the probation officer without further judicial hearing.
The appellate court concluded that the summary method of enforcing the order regarding school attendance was improper in that it circumvented the statutory procedures mandated by Welfare and Institutions Code sections 730 and 777. (In re Gerald B., supra, 105 Cal.App.3d 119, 126-127, 164 Cal.Rptr. 193.) Although neither the trial court nor the appellate court in Gerald B., labeled the time the minor was to spend in custody "Ricardo M. time," clearly the effect of the condition imposed in Gerald B. was identical to that present herein.
The facts of the instant case are procedurally distinguishable from those present in Gerald B. in that here a further court hearing was had and a decision was rendered on the basis of a supplemental probation report. Nonetheless, a careful reading of Welfare and Institutions Code section 777 leads us to conclude that the procedure adopted by the court below constituted an improper shortcut of the statutory...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lance W., In re
...but limited such confinement to two periods of fifteen days each during the period of the wardship. 22 In In re Mark M. (1980) 109 Cal.App.3d 873, 167 Cal.Rptr. 461, the Court of Appeal considered the application of subdivision (b) to a case in which the juvenile court had stayed 23 of 25 d......
-
Jorge Q., In re
... ... court said: "First we note the complete absence of authority for an order imposing a "suspended" or "stayed" Youth Authority commitment. Courts have permitted the imposition of a brief juvenile hall detention stayed on condition that other dispositional orders be performed. (E.g. In re Mark M. (1980) 109 Cal.App.3d 873, 167 ... Page 542 ... Cal.Rptr. 461; see In re Ricardo M. (1975) 52 Cal.App.3d 744, 125 Cal.Rptr. 291.) This practice has been codified at section 777, subdivision (e), which permits the court to enforce, upon a violation of 'a condition or conditions of ... ...
-
Lance W., Matter of, Cr. 44508
...imposing juvenile hall time without a hearing (In re Gerald B. (1980) 105 Cal.App.3d 119, 164 Cal.Rptr. 193; In re Mark M. (1980) 109 Cal.App.3d 873, 167 Cal.Rptr. 461) and strongly criticized the practice of continuing the disposition to a date when the court is able to ascertain the minor......
-
In re Trevor W.
...257, 259, 208 Cal.Rptr. 453; In re Demetrus H. (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 805, 806-807, 173 Cal.Rptr. 627; In re Mark M. (1980) 109 Cal.App.3d 873, 875-876, 167 Cal.Rptr. 461; In re Gerald B. (1980) 105 Cal.App.3d 119, 125, 164 Cal.Rptr. 193; In re John S. (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 285, 289, 147 Cal.......