In re Jonathan H.
Filed 1/14/08 In re Jonathan H. CA2/6
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION SIX
In re JONATHAN H., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | 2d Juv. No. B195068 (Super. Ct. No. J-1048279) (Santa Barbara County) |
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JONATHAN H., Defendant and Appellant. |
Jonathan H. appeals from the judgment of commitment to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ), formerly known as the California Youth Authority. He contends that the statutory prohibition against placing wards in county jail as a condition of probation if they are over 18 but less than 19 years old violates substantive due process as applied in this case. We dismiss the appeal as moot.
Appellant became a ward of the juvenile court (Welf. & Inst. Code, 602) based upon his December 6, 2005, admission of a felony vehicle theft and a misdemeanor battery on a peace officer and emergency personnel. (Veh. Code, 10851, subd. (a); Pen. Code, 243, subd. (b).) On June 1, 2006, after ordering appellant's commitment to DJJ for "2450 [days] consecutive," the juvenile court stayed execution of its order, "upon successful completion [of and] graduation [from] Teen Challenge."
On August 2, 2006, appellant admitted that he had violated probation by leaving Teen Challenge without permission. The probation officer prepared a disposition report recommending that appellant serve time in county jail. Appellant was 18 years old at the time of his contested disposition hearing. Appellant argued that he should be placed in county jail. The prosecution argued that because appellant was less than 19 years old, Welfare and Institutions Code section 208.5 prohibited the juvenile court from ordering him to serve time in county jail. The juvenile court agreed with the prosecution and committed appellant to DJJ for 2,450 days with 863 days' credit.
Appellant now argues that the Welfare and Institutions Code section 208.5 statutory prohibition against placing wards in county jail as a condition of probation if they are over 18 but less than 19 years old violates substantive due process as applied in this case. He did not raise this argument in the juvenile court. Respondent argues that the issue is moot because appellant is now over 19 years old. We agree that the matter is moot, and we need not decide it. (See In re Lisa M. (1986) 177 Cal.App.3d 915, 919; 9 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (4th ed. 1997) Appeal, 320, p. 359; see also People v. Marsh (1984) 36 Cal.3d 134, 144 [A reviewing court "should not decide constitutional questions unless compelled to do so"].)
The appeal is dismissed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
COFFEE, J.
We concur:
YEGAN, Acting P.J.
PERREN, J.
Arthur A. Garcia, Judge
Superior Court County of Santa Barbara
______________________________
Dan Mrotek, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Kenneth N. Sokoler, Robert C. Schneider, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Publication courtesy of California free legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Carlsbad Property line attorney.
