In re Matthew R.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Filed 8/26/13  In re Matthew R. CA4/3

 

 

 

 

 

 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

 

California
Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or
relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except
as specified by rule 8.1115(b).  This
opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for
purposes of rule 8.1115.

 

 

 

 

IN THE COURT OF
APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

 

FOURTH APPELLATE
DISTRICT

 

DIVISION THREE

 

 
>

In re MATTHEW R., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
THE PEOPLE,         Plaintiff and Respondent,               v.   MATTHEW R.,         Defendant and Appellant.	G047875            (Super. Ct. No. DL042179)            O P I N I O N

 

                        Appeal from a judgment
of the Superior Court
of href="http://www.adrservices.org/neutrals/frederick-mandabach.php">Orange
County, Gregory W. Jones, Judge.  Affirmed.

                        Marilee Marshall, under
appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

                        Kamala D. Harris,
Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Peter Quon,
Jr., and Randall D. Einhorn, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and
Respondent.

 

*               
*                *

 

Minor
Matthew R. appeals a judgment declaring him a ward of the court (Welf. &
Inst. Code, § 602)href="#_ftn1"
name="_ftnref1" title="">[1]
and placing him on formal probation. 
According to minor, the court abused its discretion when it terminated
his deferred entry of judgment proceedings because he failed drug tests.  (See § 793, subd. (a).)  We affirm.

 

FACTS

 

A
March 2012 petition alleged that minor (15 years old at the time) committed two
violations of Health and Safety Code section 11360, subdivision (a), the sale
or transportation of marijuana.  Waiving
his right to a trial, minor admitted the charges.  In response to probation department
inquiries, minor stated he first used marijuana at the age of 14 and used
marijuana “at most” once every two weeks. 
Minor claimed he had stopped using drugs and alcohol.  In June 2012, the court placed minor on
deferred entry of judgment non-wardship probation.  As a condition of probation, minor could not
use, possess, or be under the influence of alcohol or illegal drugs.  Minor was also ordered to participate in drug
testing and substance abuse education. 
Minor agreed in his deferred entry of judgment program contract that he
understood he “may be terminated from” the deferred entry of judgment program
and returned to delinquency court for
sentencing if he did not comply with the terms of his probation.

Minor
tested positive for marijuana on November
6, 2012, and December 10,
2012.  At a December 2012
hearing, minor admitted he was using marijuana until early November 2012.  Minor asked the court to allow him to
continue deferred entry of judgment non-wardship probation.  Likewise, the probation officer recommended
that the court maintain deferred entry of judgment non-wardship probation.  Instead, at a January 2013 hearing, the court
terminated deferred entry of judgment non-wardship probation, found the
allegations of the petition to be true beyond a reasonable doubt, entered
judgment declaring minor to be a ward of the court, and placed minor on formal
probation (which included many of the same conditions to which minor was
already subject).  The court explained,
“[I]t is apparent . . . that not only is [minor] in violation of the terms and
conditions of the [deferred entry of judgment] probation, but it is the same
type of conduct which brought him before the court initially.  And it appears from the violations that the
level of supervision is not sufficient.”

 

DISCUSSION

 

“‘The
[deferred entry of judgment] provisions of section 790 et seq. were enacted as
part of Proposition 21, The Gang Violence and Juvenile Crime Prevention Act of
1998, in March 2000.  The sections
provide that in lieu of jurisdictional and dispositional hearings, a minor may
admit the allegations contained in a section 602 petition and waive time for
the pronouncement of judgment.  Entry of
judgment is deferred.  After the >successful completion of a term of probation,
on motion of the prosecution and with a positive recommendation from the
probation department, the court is required to dismiss the charges.  The arrest upon which judgment was deferred
is deemed never to have occurred, and any records of the juvenile court
proceeding are sealed.’”  (>In re Kenneth J. (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th
973, 976, italics added.)

A
minor is eligible for deferred entry of judgment “if all of the following
circumstances apply:  [¶]  (1) The minor has not previously been
declared to be a ward of the court for the commission of a felony offense.  [¶] 
(2) The offense charged is not one of the offenses enumerated in
subdivision (b) of Section 707.  [¶]  (3) The minor has not previously been
committed to the custody of the Youth Authority.  [¶] 
(4) The minor’s record does not indicate that probation has ever been
revoked without being completed. 
[¶]  (5) The minor is at least 14
years of age at the time of the hearing. 
[¶]  (6) The minor is eligible for
probation pursuant to Section 1203.06 of the Penal Code.”  (§ 790, subd. (a)(1)-(6).)

The
decision whether to grant deferred entry of judgment to an eligible minor is
within the discretion of the juvenile court. 
(In re Sergio R. (2003) 106
Cal.App.4th 597, 607.)  This
exercise of discretion is based on “whether the minor will derive benefit from
‘education, treatment, and rehabilitation’ rather than a more restrictive
commitment.”  (Ibid.)  Here, the court
initially granted deferred entry of judgment to minor (in June 2012) before
ultimately terminating minor’s participation in the program (in Jan. 2012).

“If
it appears to the prosecuting attorney, the court, or the probation department
that the minor is not performing satisfactorily in the assigned program or is
not complying with the terms of the minor’s probation, or that the minor is not
benefiting from education, treatment, or rehabilitation, the court shall lift
the deferred entry of judgment and schedule a dispositional hearing.”  (§ 793, subd. (a).)  Minor concedes the court’s decision to
terminate his participation in the deferred entry of judgment program is reviewed
for an abuse of discretion.

Minor’s
position seems to be that the court’s decision was outside the bounds of reason
because:  (1) it went against the
probation department’s recommendation; (2) minor was complying with most of the
probation conditions imposed by the court; and (3) marijuana use is less
serious than its transportation or sale. 
But minor does not cite any legal authority to support the notion that
we should interfere with the court’s decision, which is supported by minor’s
flaunting of his probation condition to refrain from using illegal drugs.  The court was also entitled to conclude minor
required more stringent supervision, not the less restrictive option of his
deferred entry of judgment probation.  We
therefore reject minor’s assertion that the court abused its discretion.

 

DISPOSITION

 

The
judgment is affirmed.

 

 

 

                                                                                    IKOLA,
J.

 

WE CONCUR:

 

 

 

O’LEARY, P.
J.

 

 

 

MOORE, J.