Court Opinion

ID: 9950450
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-13 23:03:12.277468+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:37:10.525440
License: Public Domain

Filed 3/13/24 In re Ethan M. CA2/8
   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT

 In re Ethan M., a Person Coming                                 B326562
 Under the Juvenile Court Law.

 THE PEOPLE,                                                     (Los Angeles County
                                                                 Super. Ct. No. NJ30504)
           Plaintiff and Respondent,

           v.

 ETHAN M.,

           Defendant and Appellant.

      APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of
Los Angeles County. Terry Truong, Commissioner.
Conditionally reversed and remanded with directions.
      Mary Bernstein, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
      Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief
Assistant Attorney General, Susan S. Pithey, Assistant Attorney
General, Wyatt E. Bloomfield and Stefanie Yee, Deputy
Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
               _________________________________
                         INTRODUCTION
       Ethan M. appeals from the juvenile court’s order of
wardship following a sustained Welfare and Institutions Code 1
section 602 petition that alleged one count of robbery (Pen. Code,
§ 211). At the dispositional hearing, the juvenile court found that
Ethan was ineligible for informal, non-wardship probation (§ 725,
subd. (a)) based on the nature of the offense, declared him a ward
of the court, and placed him at home on formal probation. On
appeal, Ethan contends, and the Attorney General concedes, that
the juvenile court was unaware of its discretion to order informal
probation, and that the matter should be remanded for the court
to exercise its informed discretion. We agree. Therefore, we
conditionally reverse the order of wardship, and remand for the
juvenile court to conduct a new dispositional hearing in
accordance with this opinion.
       FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
       On March 2, 2022, the Orange County District Attorney
filed a section 602 petition, alleging that Ethan committed the
offense of second degree robbery. Ethan admitted the allegation,
and the juvenile court sustained the petition. Because Ethan
resided in Los Angeles County, the court transferred the case to
that county for disposition.
       According to a predisposition probation officer’s report, the
offense occurred when Ethan and another minor, E.K., entered a
convenience store. While E.K. tried to distract the store clerk,
Ethan yelled out, “I’m strapped,” and raised his shirt to expose a

1     Unless otherwise stated, all further undesignated statutory
references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

                                 2
handgun in his waistband. Ethan grabbed two cases of vape pens
from behind the counter, and the minors then ran from the store.
        On December 6, 2022, Los Angeles County Superior Court
Commissioner Terry Truong held the dispositional hearing.
Ethan’s counsel requested the court place Ethan on informal
probation under section 725, subdivision (a). His counsel argued
that, among other mitigating factors, the gun involved was an
airsoft gun; Ethan was 13 years old at the time of the offense and
had no prior criminal history; he earned good grades and had a
permit to work as an actor; and he regularly participated in
church youth groups and volunteer programs. The probation
report also attached several letters of support from members of
the community.
        Following an off-the-record discussion with Ethan’s counsel
and the prosecutor, the court announced that “this is not a count
that I can do a [section] 725 informal probation on.” Ethan’s
mother expressed her shock to the court, stating, “we’ve done
everything to prove that this is not the . . . our life.” The court
responded, “I see that in the paperwork. . . . And I really was
considering that informal probation that [Ethan’s counsel] asked
for. But given the charge against your son, it is a very serious
charge. It is what we considered––it’s a [section] 707(b) offense.
. . . If you have not already heard that phrase, that is the kind of
charge that your son is facing. It’s also one of these charges
where I cannot do informal probation.” The court declared Ethan
a ward of the court under section 602, and placed him at home on
formal probation.
        On February 2, 2023, a different judicial officer held a
hearing on the matter. Ethan’s counsel informed the court that
she requested the hearing to make a further record. She noted

                                 3
that, at the dispositional hearing, the court considered placing
Ethan on informal probation, but believed it lacked the authority
to do so based on the nature of the offense. She then explained
that section 654.3 does grant the court discretion to order
informal probation in certain cases, even where a section 707,
subdivision (b) crime is involved. Ethan’s counsel did not,
however, specifically ask the court to reconsider the prior ruling
or to determine whether Ethan was eligible for informal
probation. The court stated “[t]he record is noted,” but made no
orders at the hearing.
       Ethan filed a timely appeal.
                            DISCUSSION
       Ethan argues that the juvenile court abused its discretion
in declining to order informal probation because the court was
unaware of its authority to do so in the interests of justice. The
Attorney General acknowledges that the court misunderstood the
scope of its discretion in denying Ethan’s request for informal
probation, and that remand is required for the court to exercise
its informed discretion. We agree.
I.     Governing law
       “If the allegations of a section 602 petition are found true,
the [juvenile] court may dismiss the petition in the interest of
justice (§ 782), place the child on informal probation for up to six
months without a declaration of wardship (§ 725, subd. (a)), or
declare the child a ward of the juvenile court (§ 725, subd. (b))
and proceed to disposition.” (In re W.B. (2012) 55 Cal.4th 30, 44;
see Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.790(a)(2).)
       Section 725, subdivision (a), governs non-wardship or
informal probation. It provides, in relevant part, that “[i]f the
court has found that the minor is a person described by Section

                                 4
601 or 602, by reason of the commission of an offense other than
any of the offenses set forth in Section 654.3, it may, without
adjudging the minor a ward of the court, place the minor on
probation, under the supervision of the probation officer, for a
period not to exceed six months.” (§ 725, subd. (a).)
       Section 654.3, subdivision (b), specifies that “[a] minor shall
not be eligible for the program of supervision set forth in Section
654 or 654.2 in the case of a petition alleging that the minor has
violated an offense listed in subdivision (b) of Section 707, except
in unusual cases where the court determines the interests of
justice would be best served and the court specified on the record
the reason for its decision.” Robbery is one of the offenses listed
in section 707, subdivision (b). (§ 707, subd. (b)(3).)
       Ordinarily, “[a] juvenile court’s dispositional decision is
reviewed for an abuse of discretion.” (In re A.M. (2020)
53 Cal.App.5th 824, 835.) However, “ ‘ “[a] discretionary order
that is based on the application of improper criteria or incorrect
legal assumptions is not an exercise of informed discretion, and is
subject to reversal even though there may be substantial
evidence to support that order.” ’ ” (In re I.V. (2017) 11
Cal.App.5th 249, 257.) “ ‘If the record affirmatively shows the
[juvenile] court misunderstood the proper scope of its discretion,
remand . . . is required to permit that court to exercise informed
discretion with awareness of the full scope of its discretion and
applicable law.’ ” (In re L.B. (2023) 98 Cal.App.5th 827, 839.)
II.    Remand is required for the juvenile court to exercise
       its informed discretion
       In this case, the record reflects that the juvenile court
mistakenly believed that, because robbery is among the offenses
listed in section 707, subdivision (b), it lacked the authority to

                                  5
grant Ethan’s request for informal, non-wardship probation
under any circumstances. The court explained, “I really was
considering . . . informal probation that [Ethan’s counsel] asked
for. But given the charge against your son, . . . it’s a [section]
707(b) offense. . . . It’s also one of these charges where I cannot
do informal probation.”
       While it is true that Ethan’s robbery offense made him
presumptively ineligible for informal probation under section
654.3, subdivision (b), the juvenile court was vested with the
“discretion to override any of these statutory presumptions ‘in an
unusual case where the interests of justice would best be served
and the court specifies on the record the reasons for its decision.’ ”
(In re A.J. (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 1112, 1118.) As the Attorney
General concedes, the court’s statements at the dispositional
hearing indicate that it was seriously contemplating placing
Ethan on informal probation, but it incorrectly believed the
nature of the offense precluded it from doing so. Because the
record shows the juvenile court misunderstood the full scope of its
discretion, we conclude the proper remedy is to conditionally
reverse the order of wardship, and to remand the matter for the
court to exercise its informed discretion on Ethan’s request for
informal, non-wardship probation. (See In re N.L. (2022)
81 Cal.App.5th 463, 472–473.) We express no view as to whether
the juvenile court should grant Ethan’s request on remand.
                             DISPOSITION
       The order adjudging Ethan a ward of the juvenile court and
placing him at home on probation is conditionally reversed, and
the matter is remanded for the juvenile court to reconsider
Ethan’s request for non-wardship probation under section 725,
subdivision (a). If, on remand, the court determines the interests

                                  6
of justice would be best served by placing Ethan on non-wardship
probation and it specifies the reason for its decision on the record,
then it may, without adjudging Ethan a ward of the court, place
him on probation under the supervision of the probation officer,
for a period not to exceed six months. If the court decides not to
grant Ethan’s request for non-wardship probation, then it shall
reinstate its original dispositional order.

                                            VIRAMONTES, J.

      WE CONCUR:

                  GRIMES, Acting P. J.

                  WILEY, J.

                                 7