Opinion ID: 844236
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Effect of Other Statutes Added or Amended at the Same Time as Sections 731(a)(4) and 733(c)

Text: The Attorney General contends that statutes added or amended concurrently with sections 731(a)(4) and 733(c) reflect the Legislature's intent that juvenile sex offenders remain eligible for DJF commitment. We agree that certain juvenile sex offenders are eligible for DJF, but only so long as they have a prior or current section 707(b) offense sustained against them. We begin by considering section 731.1, which was added, along with sections 731(a)(4) and 733(c), by Senate Bill No. 81. (Stats. 2007, ch. 175, §§ 20, 37.) Section 731.1 governs a juvenile court's authority to recall the commitment of a ward to the DJF. Section 731.1 provides that the court committing a ward to the DJF may recall that commitment in the case of any ward whose commitment offense was not an offense listed in subdivision (b) of Section 707, unless the offense was a sex offense set forth in subdivision (c) of Section 290.008 of the Penal Code, and who remains confined in an institution operated by the division on or after September 1, 2007. (§ 731.1, subd. (a).) By its terms, section 731.1 governs recall of previous commitments of wards to the DJF, not eligibility for commitments starting on September 1, 2007. (See In re Carl N. (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 423, 437-438 [72 Cal.Rptr.3d 823].) That the Legislature concluded juvenile sex offenders already committed to the DJF should not receive the benefits of a recall under newly enacted section 731.1 sheds no light on what the Legislature intended regarding future commitment of juvenile offenders pursuant to sections 731(a)(4) and 733(c). As observed in In re N.D. (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 885, 891-892 [84 Cal.Rptr.3d 517], the Legislature undertook a fiscal realignment through Senate Bill No. 81 that shifted responsibility to the counties for all but the most serious youth offenders. When considering such fiscal matters, the Legislature could reasonably make different policy choices regarding which juvenile offenders should be kept in the custody of the DJF and which juvenile offenders should be committed in the future to the DJF. We next consider former section 1731.5, which was amended by Senate Bill No. 81 to read, in relevant part, as follows: (a) After certification to the Governor as provided in this article, a court may commit to the [DJF] any person who meets all of the following: [¶] (1) Is convicted of an offense described in subdivision (b) of Section 707 or paragraph (3) of subdivision (d) of Section 290 of the Penal Code. [¶] (2) Is found to be less than 21 years of age at the time of apprehension. [¶] (3) Is not sentenced to death, imprisonment for life, with or without the possibility of parole, whether or not pursuant to Section 190 of the Penal Code, imprisonment for 90 days or less, or the payment of a fine, or after having been directed to pay a fine, defaults in the payment thereof, and is subject to imprisonment for more than 90 days under the judgment. [¶] (4) Is not granted probation, or was granted probation and that probation is revoked and terminated. (Stats. 2007, ch. 175, §§ 24, 37, italics added.) After the Legislature reorganized and renumbered the provisions of Penal Code former section 290, the reference to Penal Code section 290, subdivision (b)(3) in section 1731.5 was correspondingly changed to Penal Code section 290.008(c). (Stats. 2008, ch. 699, § 29.) Similar to section 731.1, section 1731.5 operates in a different context from the initial commitment of juvenile wards to the DJF by a juvenile court. Section 1731.5 is part of the statutory scheme applicable to individuals who are tried as adults in criminal proceedings. Specifically, section 1731, subdivision (a), states: When in any criminal proceeding in a court of this State a person has been convicted of a public offense and the person was a minor when he or she committed the offense, the court shall determine whether the person was less than 21 years of age at the time of the apprehension from which the criminal proceeding resulted. Proceedings in a juvenile court in respect to a juvenile are not criminal proceedings as that phrase is used in this chapter.  (Italics added.) Section 1731.5, subdivision (a), affords the court in such criminal proceedings the authority to commit to the DJF an individual who is convicted of an offense described in subdivision (b) of Section 707 or subdivision (c) of Section 290.008 of the Penal Code ( id., subd. (a)(1)), found to be less than 21 years of age at the time of apprehension ( id., subd. (a)(2)), and meets certain sentence criteria. ( Id., subd. (a)(3)-(4).) Section 1731.5 provides a court in a criminal proceeding the discretion to commit an individual who was a juvenile at the time of apprehension to the DJF as a lesser alternative to state prison. The Legislature's choice to include offenses listed under both section 707(b) and Penal Code section 290.008(c) as qualifying offenses for this purpose does not shed any light on the Legislature's intent regarding the authority of a juvenile court to commit a juvenile ward to the DJF pursuant to sections 731(a)(4) and 733(c). The Attorney General also cites Senate Bill No. 81's amendment of both former section 736 (regarding the DJF's acceptance of a ward for commitment) and section 1766, former subdivision (a) (setting forth the Juvenile Parole Board's general authority), to include a reference to section 733. (Stats. 2007, ch. 175, §§ 23, 25.) These amendments make explicit within these statutes the restriction of the pool of wards eligible for commitment to the DJF set forth in section 733. These amendments do not suggest an intent by the Legislature that juveniles who commit sex offenses not described in section 707(b) and who have not been found to have committed a section 707(b) offense are eligible for commitment to the DJF. As the Attorney General further notes, Senate Bill No. 81 also added a new subdivision (b) to section 1766 to direct the county of commitment, as opposed to the state, to supervise the parole of any ward released after September 1, 2007, if the ward was committed to the custody of the DJF for committing an offense not listed in section 707(b). (Stats. 2007, ch. 175, § 25.) This was part of the fiscal realignment of state and local responsibilities undertaken by Senate Bill No. 81. ( In re N.D., supra, 167 Cal.App.4th at pp. 891-892.) In the clarifying urgency legislation passed shortly after the enactment of Senate Bill No. 81, former subdivision (b) of section 1766 was further amended to additionally exclude from local parole supervision any ward released on parole on or after September 1, 2007, if the ward committed an offense enumerated in Penal Code former section 290, subdivision (d)(3) (subsequently renumbered § 290.008(c)). (Stats. 2007, ch. 257, § 5, eff. Sept. 29, 2007.) Such provisions now appear in subdivision (c) of section 1766. Section 1766 sets forth the authority of the Juvenile Parole Board over wards committed to the DJF. (§ 1766, subd. (b) [former subd. (a)].) The section provides for local parole supervision of wards committed to the DJF for an offense other than one listed in section 707(b) or a sex offense described in Penal Code section 290.008(c). (§ 1766, subd. (c) [former subd. (b)].) Section 1766 thus divides responsibility between the state and counties for parole supervision of wards who have already been committed to the DJF. As such, it is not an indication of the Legislature's intent regarding which wards are eligible for commitment in the future to the DJF. Finally, we consider section 1767.35, which was also added by Senate Bill No. 81. As initially enacted, former section 1767.35 provided for the return of a juvenile parolee whose parole was suspended, cancelled or revoked (1) to the custody of the DJF if the parolee was under the jurisdiction of the Division of Juvenile Parole Operations (Division) for the commission of an offense listed in section 707(b), but (2) to the local county of commitment if the parolee was under the jurisdiction of the Division based on the commission of an offense not described in section 707(b). (Stats. 2007, ch. 175, § 27.) The clarifying subsequent legislation amended section 1767.35 to authorize the return to the custody of the DJF of any parolee who was under the jurisdiction of the Division for the commission of an offense described in either section 707(b) or Penal Code section 290.008(c). (Stats. 2007, ch. 257, § 6.) Otherwise, the parolee is to be returned to the county of commitment. (§ 1767.35, subd. (c).) Section 1767.35 expresses once again an apparent choice by the Legislature to treat those juvenile offenders who have already been committed to the DJF differently from wards whose initial eligibility for commitment is being considered. The Legislature's fiscal policy decision with respect to the return of juvenile parolees to the DJF or local counties does not reveal anything about the Legislature's intent regarding the authority of a juvenile court to commit a juvenile ward to the DJF pursuant to sections 731(a)(4) and 733(c). (5) We conclude none of these statutes support the Attorney General's position that the Legislature intended juveniles who commit sex offenses not described in section 707(b) to be eligible for commitment to the DJF. Indeed, the wording of these statutes suggests the contrary is true. Specifically, the language of sections 731.1, 1731.5, 1766, and 1767.35, demonstrates the Legislature knows how to specify that either an offense listed in section 707(b) or an offense listed in Penal Code section 290.008(c) makes a juvenile ward eligible for special treatment. It is reasonable, therefore, to conclude that if the Legislature had wanted to make both types of offenses a basis for initial commitment to the DJF, it would have said so in section 731(a)(4), the provision that sets forth a ward's eligibility. When the Legislature uses different words or phrasing in contemporaneously enacted statutory provisions, a strong inference arises that a different meaning was intended. ( People v. Albillar (2010) 51 Cal.4th 47, 56 [119 Cal.Rptr.3d 415, 244 P.3d 1062].)