Filed 11/19/14 Alonzo G. v. Super. Ct. CA5 

 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS 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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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 

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

ALONZO G., 

 Petitioner, 

 v. 

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF TULARE 

COUNTY, 

 Respondent; 

THE PEOPLE, 

 Real Party in Interest. 

F069485 

(Super. Ct. No. JJD066008) 

O P I N I O N

THE COURT*

 ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for writ of prohibition and/or mandate. 

 Lisa Bertolino, Public Defender, and Thomas C. McGuire, Assistant Public 

Defender, for Petitioner. 

 No appearance for Respondent. 

 Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney 

General, Louis M. Vasquez, Sean McCoy and Rebecca Whitfield, Deputy Attorneys 

General, for Real Party in Interest. 

-ooOoo- 

 

* Before Kane, Acting P.J., Detjen, J., and Peña, J. 
2 

STATEMENT OF FACTS 

 In 2012, the minor, Alonzo G., admitted a petition pursuant to Welfare and 

Institution Code section 602,1 which alleged felony second-degree robbery (Pen. Code, 

§ 211) and a felony assault with force likely to cause great bodily injury (Pen. Code, 

§ 245). The minor was made a ward of the court and ordered to participate in the Youth 

Treatment Center Unit for a period of 90 to 180 days. 

On April 22, 2014, a section 602 petition was filed alleging that the minor violated 

Health and Safety Code sections 11378 (possession for sale) and 11550 (being under the 

influence). 

On May 13, 2014, a section 777 petition was filed alleging a violation of 

probation. 

On May 28, 2014, a hearing was held. The prosecution informed the court that the 

section 602 petition had been filed by mistake and requested the court to arraign the 

minor on the section 777 petition. The minor objected to the dismissal. At that hearing, 

the court did not expressly dismiss the section 602 petition. The section 602 petition was 

dismissed by minute order filed on May 28, 2014, which did not contain the findings 

required by In re Juan C. (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 728, 752-753 and In re Albert M. (1992) 

7 Cal.App.4th 353. In re Greg F. (2012) 55 Cal.4th 393 stated: 

“A juvenile court’s decision to dismiss a 602 petition under section 782 must be 

supported by a statement of ‘specific reasons’ in a minute order.” (In re Greg F., 

supra, 55 Cal.4th at p. 413.) 

This petition for writ for prohibition and/or mandate was filed on June 6, 2014. 

In its informal response filed on July 17, 2014, the Attorney General argues that 

the juvenile court expressed a sufficient reason when it stated at the hearing: 

 

1 All further references to statutes are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless 

otherwise stated. 
3 

“The Court: I know why they are doing it, because they want to make him eligible 

for a different disposal option.” 

The above quoted statement by the juvenile court was not a ruling on the request 

for a dismissal. Instead, the court was merely interpreting the reasons for that request. 

Moreover, that reason was not set forth in the minute order. Thus, that statement cannot 

comply with the above cited case authorities. 

The informal response also argues that the juvenile court impliedly adopted the 

reasons given by the district attorney for the dismissal. However, the juvenile court could 

not satisfy the above authorities by impliedly adopting statements by the district attorney. 

Petitioner is entitled to appropriate relief. (Code Civ. Proc., §1085; see Whitney’s 

at the Beach v. Superior Court (1970) 3 Cal.App.3d 258, 266.) A peremptory writ of 

mandate is proper and should issue. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1088; Palma v. U.S. Industrial 

Fasteners, Inc. (1984) 36 Cal.3d 171, 180-181; Goodenough v. Superior Court (1971) 18 

Cal.App.3d 692, 697.) 

DISPOSITION 

 Let a peremptory writ of mandate issue directing respondent court to vacate its 

order of May 28, 2014, in Tulare County Juvenile Court action No. JJD066008, to 

reconsider said order, and thereafter issue a new order either granting or denying the 

request of the district attorney to dismiss the petition filed pursuant to Welfare and 

Institutions Code section 602. 

 This court notes that nothing in this opinion is intended to indicate how the court 

should rule on that request. 

 The stay order filed in this court on June 30, 2014, shall remain in effect only until 

this opinion is final in all courts of this state, the juvenile court complies with the above 

stated directions or the California Supreme Court grants a hearing herein, whichever shall 

first occur; thereafter, said stay order is vacated and the stay is dissolved.