1

Filed 3/28/14 In re Frankie A. CA1/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

In re FRANKIE A., a Person Coming 

Under the Juvenile Court Law.

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

FRANKIE A.,

Defendant and Appellant.

 A137865

 (Alameda County

 Super. Ct. No. SJ110179151)

The juvenile court declared Frankie A. (Frankie) a ward of the court after 

determining he was a habitual truant. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 601, subd. (b).)1 On appeal, 

he contends the juvenile court erred by remanding him to juvenile hall without following 

procedures applicable to contempt proceedings. He also argues that the court lacked 

authority to place him on GPS monitoring as a condition of probation. Because Frankie

has achieved the age of majority and can no longer be considered a truant, we conclude 

the appeal is moot and must be dismissed.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In November 2011, the Alameda County District Attorney filed a petition alleging 

that Frankie was a habitual truant under section 601, subdivision (b). Frankie admitted 

 

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

otherwise specified.
2

the allegation and was declared a ward of the court. The probation department stated in 

subsequent progress reports that Frankie was not regularly attending school. In February 

2012, the juvenile court remanded Frankie to spend the weekend in juvenile hall after 

finding that he had failed to attend school regularly. Frankie was ordered into custody 

again in March, April, and June 2012. 

At the progress hearing conducted in March 2012, the court also placed Frankie on 

GPS monitoring without objection. In October 2012, an electronic monitoring officer 

determined that Frankie had violated the terms of his GPS supervision and placed him in 

custody. The court released Frankie two days later. 

In November 2012, the court ordered Frankie to be placed on GPS monitoring 

again over defense counsel’s objection. Frankie filed a motion seeking to annul the 

court’s November 2012 order placing him on GPS monitoring. He argued that the court 

failed to follow procedures applicable to contempt proceedings and that the court lacked 

authority to impose GPS monitoring in the case of a truant. The juvenile court denied the 

motion in February 2013. Frankie timely appealed from the court’s order refusing to 

vacate GPS monitoring. 

DISCUSSION

At the outset, it is necessary to clarify exactly which juvenile court actions are 

encompassed within this appeal. Frankie suggests the court remanded him into custody 

without following proper procedural protections. Specifically, he contends the court was 

required to comply with statutory procedures applicable to civil contempt proceedings 

before he could be placed in secure confinement during nonschool hours. However, the 

challenged orders from November 2012 and February 2013 did not involve a remand into 

custody. Indeed, the court specifically rejected a probation department recommendation 

to remand him into custody.2 Instead, the court placed him on GPS monitoring and 

 

2

The court stated: “So I am going to place [Frankie] on G.P.S. The 

recommendation from probation, which I don’t think was inappropriate, was that he be 

remanded today. I’m not going to remand him. I’m going to have him do two WETA 

weekends. And he’s going to be placed on G.P.S. today.” (Italics added.) 
3

ordered him to attend Weekend Training Academy (WETA) for two weekends. As this 

court explained in In re M.R. (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 49, 54 (M.R.), WETA is a weekend 

program that is an alternative to detention. 

Accordingly, there is no remand order properly before this court on appeal. The 

appeal is untimely as to any earlier remand orders that the court imposed, including his 

remand into custody for a GPS violation in October 2012. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rules 

5.585, 8.406(a)(1) [notice of appeal must be filed within 60 days of challenged order].) 

Further, as explained in M.R., supra, 220 Cal.App.4th 49, a judgment of contempt—

which is the appropriate basis for remanding a contemptuous juvenile truant into 

custody—is not an appealable order but instead must be challenged by a petition for 

extraordinary writ relief. (M.R., supra, at p. 65.) Therefore, the only juvenile court 

action properly encompassed within this appeal is an order placing Frankie on GPS 

monitoring in November 2012.

The Attorney General contends the appeal is moot because Frankie has attained 

the age of majority and can no longer be required to attend school. We agree with the 

Attorney General. 

Frankie attained the age of majority in October 2013. A person is required to 

attend school only if he is under 18 years of age. (See Ed. Code, § 48400; In re James D. 

(1987) 43 Cal.3d 903, 909.) Consequently, Frankie cannot be considered a truant if he 

fails to attend school after his 18th birthday.

An appeal should be dismissed as moot when an event renders it impossible for 

the court to grant any effectual relief. (In re Sodersten (2007) 146 Cal.App.4th 

1163, 1217.) Here, because Frankie is now over 18 years of age, it would serve no 

purpose to reverse the juvenile court’s order imposing GPS monitoring. Frankie can no 

longer be subject to GPS monitoring as a truant regardless of what we may decide.

Frankie contends the appeal is not moot, arguing that a favorable ruling on appeal 

would erase the prior remand orders and reduce the likelihood that he would be 

maintained on probation. We disagree. For reasons we have explained, the prior remand 

orders are not properly encompassed within the scope of this appeal. Further, it is 
4

difficult to conceive what benefit an adult such as Frankie would receive from an order 

annulling remand orders issued in a juvenile court truancy proceeding that is no longer 

active.

Frankie also urges that we should address the case on its merits despite the fact the 

appeal is technically moot. He argues that the appeal poses an issue of broad public 

interest that is likely to recur. While that may be true, the issues raised by Frankie have 

already been addressed in published opinions. In M.R., supra, 220 Cal.App.4th at p. 54, 

this court held that the juvenile court must comply with statutory procedures governing 

civil contempt proceedings before ordering the secure confinement of a habitual truant. 

Further, Division Four of this court considered the propriety of a GPS monitoring 

condition for a truant in In re A.M. (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 1494, 1500, in which the 

court held that “in appropriate circumstances—such as may exist where a ward continues 

a pattern of truancy and violates curfew—GPS monitoring may be an appropriate 

condition of probation for a section 601 ward.” Consequently, the issues raised by

Frankie have already been the subject of reported decisions. Frankie has presented no 

reason for us to revisit these issues in a moot appeal that can afford him no effective 

relief.

As a final matter, we note that Frankie requested oral argument in response to a 

notice sent by the court’s clerk, as a matter of course, when an appeal is fully briefed. A 

party’s right to oral argument exists in any appeal considered on the merits and decided 

by written opinion. (See Moles v. Regents of University of California (1982) 32 Cal.3d 

867, 871; accord, Lewis v. Superior Court (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1232, 1255.) Because we 

dismiss the appeal without reaching the merits, Frankie does not have a right to oral 

argument, which we find in this instance to be unnecessary to our dismissal of the appeal 

on the ground it is moot.
5

DISPOSITION

The appeal is dismissed.

_________________________

McGuiness, P.J.

We concur:

_________________________

Jenkins, J.

_________________________

Pollak, J.