People v. Albert C. (In re Albert C.)
| Citation | 194 Cal.Rptr.3d 706,241 Cal.App.4th 1436 |
| Decision Date | 10 November 2015 |
| Docket Number | B256480 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals |
| Parties | IN RE ALBERT C., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. The People, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Albert C., Defendant and Appellant. |
Laini Millar Melnick, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Victoria B. Wilson, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, Scott A. Taryle, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, and Theresa A. Patterson, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Proceedings against a minor on a juvenile delinquency petition (Welf. & Inst.Code, § 602)1must be suspended if the minor “lacks sufficient present ability to consult with counsel and assist in preparing his or her defense with a reasonable degree of rational understanding, or lacks a rational as well as factual understanding, of the nature of the charges or proceedings against him or her” based upon a showing that “the minor suffers from a mental disorder, developmental disability, developmental immaturity, or other condition ....” (§ 709, subds. (a) & (b).) Albert C., a minor named in two section 602petitions, was detained in juvenile hall for 294 days2while receiving services to assist him in gaining competence after being declared incompetent to stand trial. At the end of that 294 day period, the delinquency court reinstated proceedings based on findings that minor was competent and he had “exaggerated” his inability to understand the nature of the proceedings.
Minor contends in this appeal that the delinquency court's handling of the proceedings after minor was declared incompetent violated various constitutional and statutory provisions, as well as a protocol drafted by the Presiding Judge of Juvenile Court in Los Angeles for the handling of cases in which a minor is declared incompetent. Minor also challenges conditions of probation imposed as part of a suitable placement order. We modify a condition of probation, but otherwise affirm.
On July 13, 2012, a section 602petition was filed alleging that minor threatened a public officer, in violation of Penal Code section 71.3Minor denied the allegations at his arraignment hearing and was released into his mother's custody. On August 14, 2012, minor's mother reported that minor left home without permission, he had not returned for 48 hours, and his whereabouts were unknown. An arrest warrant was issued.
Minor remained at large until his arrest on February 12, 2013. A second section 602petition was filed alleging the following: assault by means likely to cause great bodily injury (Pen.Code, § 245, subd. (a)(4)[count 1] ); battery with serious bodily injury (Pen.Code, § 243, subd. (d)[count 2] ); possession of a firearm by a minor (Pen.Code, § 29610[count 3] ); and criminal threats (Pen.Code, § 422, subd. (a)[count 4] ).4At the arraignment on the second section 602petition, minor's counsel declared a doubt as to minor's competence and proceedings were suspended.
Minor was detained in juvenile hall while proceedings were suspended. At a hearing on February 4, 2014, the delinquency court ruled minor had regained competency and reinstated proceedings.
On February 20, 2014, minor admitted count 1 of the first petition and count 1 of the second petition. He was ordered suitably placed. This timely appeal followed.
We first address the constitutional issues raised by minor. He contends (1) the juvenile court improperly reinstated delinquency proceedings by applying an incorrect legal standard and rejecting the opinion of the expert who evaluated minor and found him incompetent, (2) his right to due process of law was violated by his lengthy detention without evidence of progress toward competency, (3) the length of detention violated his right to equal protection of the law because he was not afforded the procedural protections required for a civil commitment, and (4) his right to confront and cross-examine witnesses was violated when the court considered statements by a deputy county counsel.
Minor's contentions are based upon the manner in which the delinquency court proceeded from the time minor's counsel declared a doubt as to minor's competency. We set forth a review of the proceedings in sections corresponding to the numerous arguments raised on appeal.
The first section 602petition was filed on July 13, 2012. The delinquency court explained deferred entry of judgment to minor at a pretrial hearing on August 8, 2012. Minor's counsel was unsure whether minor understood the proceedings. As a result, arraignment was continued to September 19, 2012, and minor was released home to his mother.5
An arrest warrant was issued after minor absconded from mother's home on August 14, 2012. Minor's whereabouts remained unknown until his arrest on February 12, 2013, which resulted in the filing of the second section 602petition.
Arraignment on the second section 602petition was scheduled for February 15, 2013. The lawyer standing for minor's counsel of record at the arraignment declared a doubt as to minor's competency to stand trial and proceedings were suspended. The delinquency court ordered minor detained upon finding that it was Similar findings supporting detention were made by the court at numerous proceedings until the ultimate resolution of the petitions.
The delinquency court made efforts to place minor in a less restrictive setting than juvenile hall, taking into account that minor was also a dependent child under section 300. Efforts to place minor were made difficult by his abysmal behavior in juvenile hall—“since the minor's last court appearance on 03/19/2013, the minor has been involved in 11 incidents while inside juvenile hall,” and on March 20, 2013, “minor participated in gang activity when he flashed ‘gang signs.’ ” Between April 10 and April 25, 2013, Probation filed three behavior reports with the court, detailing incidents involving minor.
On June 20, 2013, Probation filed a report discussing the least restrictive setting for minor's placement. The only available alternative to juvenile hall was to release minor to the Department's care and custody. The probation officer recommended that minor remain in juvenile hall due to his “past AWOL/runaway behaviors.” When previously released to his mother's custody, minor left home without permission and his whereabouts were not known to Probation and the Department for six months. Minor was arrested on charges of assault by means likely to cause great bodily injury and criminal threats. Probation did not believe that the Department possessed the supervision and structure required to ensure minor's safety and the safety of the community based on his past delinquent history. Because minor was under dependency jurisdiction, the court could order the Department to screen minor for a “Level 14” facility. Probation recommended that the hearing be continued for one month to assess minor's progress. At the June 20, 2013 hearing, the court ordered the Department to screen minor for Level 14 placement.
A July 17, 2013 probation report stated that the a caseworker from the Department presented minor's case to the interagency screening committee on July 2, 2013. Minor met the criteria for a Level 14 treatment program and/or a community treatment facility. Service providers at the meeting stated that they would present minor's case to their respective agencies, but that at the time no beds were available.
At an August 15, 2013 hearing, the delinquency court clarified that it intended the Department and Probation to coordinate a Level 14 placement, and that it was in communication with the dependency court judge who would make a joint order. Minor's counsel renewed her objections to minor's detention and moved to dismiss all charges because of the court's failure to adhere to the Amended Competency to Stand Trial Protocol (Protocol) drafted by the Presiding Judge of Juvenile Court in Los Angeles and the constitutional requirements of due process of law. The court observed that the deadlines in the Protocol are “not law, it is protocol, and the court does believe that for reasons that have been stated there's good cause to deviate from protocol and has done so.” The court denied the motion to dismiss and continued the competency hearings with findings supporting minor's continued detention.
At the hearing on August 26, 2013, the court stated that minor was eligible for and agreed to Level 14 placement, but that there was a four to six week wait before placement. On September 18, 2013, minor's counsel specifically requested minor be placed in the “Omega” housing unit of the Department. Minor's social worker stated that she had never heard of the “Omega” housing unit.
Probation's October 16, 2013 report advised the delinquency court that minor did not meet the criteria for admission into the Vista Del Mar facility. At a hearing on October 16, 2013, minor's counsel stated that at minor's last appearance in dependency court, a placement was open for minor that day but the dependency court failed to fund the placement and minor was not released. The delinquency court replied that the matter of funding would need to be resolved by the dependency court. Minor's counsel renewed her objection to minor's custody, arguing that minor was not likely to attain competency in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial