In re N.A.
Filed 4/30/08 In re N.A. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 N. A., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | |
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. N. A., Defendant and Appellant. | G038813 (Super. Ct. No. DL027638) O P I N I O N |
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Ronald P. Kreber, Judge. Reversed and remanded.
Stephen M. Hinkle, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Gary W. Schons, Assistant Attorney General and Kevin Vienna, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant N. A. admitted to violating Health and Safety Code sections 11359 and 11360, subdivision (a) (possession of marijuana for sale and sale or transportation of marijuana) and was declared a ward of the court. The prosecutor determined defendant was eligible for deferred entry of judgment pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 790. The probation officer recommended against deferred entry of judgment. The court failed to conduct a hearing to determine whether judgment should be deferred and placed defendant on probation.
If the prosecuting attorney finds that the minor meets the eligibility requirement for deferred entry of judgment, the court has a mandatory . . . duty . . . to either summarily grant [deferred entry of judgment] or examine the record, conduct a hearing, and make the final determination regarding education, treatment and rehabilitation . . . . [Citations.] (In re Luis B. (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1117, 1123.)
The Attorney General concedes that the court abused its discretion in failing to conduct the required hearing. We therefore remand this case to the juvenile court to examine the record and conduct the required hearing to determine whether entry of judgment should be deferred.
RYLAARSDAM, ACTING P. J.
WE CONCUR:
OLEARY, J.
FYBEL, J.
Publication Courtesy of California attorney referral.
Analysis and review provided by Vista Property line Lawyers.
