CHILDREN AND THE LAW
...Delinquency Matters
......Disposition
.........Removal From Home
............CYA/DJJ/DJF
 36 Cards On This Topic:
  • No DJF commitment if ward is under age of 11, suffering from contagious disease, or adjudged court ward per W&IC 602, and the most recent offense alleged and admitted/found true is not described in W&C 707(b).
  • Case and statutary references to CYA, DJJ and DJF.
  • CYA commitment must be beneficial to minor.
  • Computation of length of confinement to CYA.
  • When W&IC 602 petition alleges M committed a series of criminal offenses, including serious or violent offenses, M may not be committed to the DJF if the last offense in the series is nonviolent.
  • Juv. court cannot commit ward to DJF under W&IC 731(a)(4) if s/he never adjudged to have committed W&IC 707(b) offense, even if most recent offense admitted or found true is a sex offense in PC 290.008(c) as referenced in W&IC 733(c).
  • M entitled to new commitment proceeding to include finding his mental disorder caused serious difficulty in controlling his behavior—detention scheme interpreted to contain such requirement to preserve constitutionality.
  • Unavailability of suitable alternatives, per se, does not justify commitment of marginally delinquent minor to CYA.
  • Juvenile ct. abused discretion when it committed minor to DJF where no substantial evidence showed commitment to juvenile hall was inappropriate.
  • Even if M's robbery and gun possession were essentially simultaneous, which came last would be arguable, and the "most recent offense" rule does not eliminate discretion to impose a DJF commitment for a currently violent M.
  • The term "any petition" in W&IC §733, which limits commitments to DJF based on the nature of the "most recent offense alleged in any petition," does not encompass sister-state delinquency petitions.
  • M's special education needs did not trump other factors the court was required to weigh in making its decision to commit him to DJJ, which would provide him with the educational and mental health services he needed.
  • Though 2012 amendment to W&IC 731 applied retroactively, no ex post facto problem b/c DJF commitment does not constitute greater punishment than the local commitments available when M committed the offenses.
  • Minor sex offender's placement in DJF was not an ex post facto violation despite his ineligibility when he was adjudicated a ward; amendment to W&IC 731 was meant to apply retroactively.
  • Order committing M to juvenile hall to age 21 with housing at DJF per W&IC 1752.16 was constitutional, did not violate the mandate in In re C.H., and was not an abuse of discretion.
  • M properly committed to DJJ where last offense alleged in an actual petition, and admitted by M, was robbery; later "charging documents" alleging probation violations were not "petitions" w/in meaning of W&IC 733(c).
  • Juv. court may commit ward to DJF for W&IC 777(a)(2) probation violation where offense for which probation received is DJF-eligible under W&IC 733 and no petition w/more recent non-DJF-eligible offense sustained.
  • 2007 amendments to W&IC 731 and 733 not applicable to a disposition occurring before their effective date.
  • M properly committed to CYA where substantial evidence showed such commitment would benefit him, and less restrictive placement would be ineffective and inappropriate.
  • Prior to CYA commitment, court should have considered minor's special educational needs.
  • As W&IC §§607 and 1769 not limited to persons 16 or older at time of offense, juvenile court had jurisdiction to extend to age 25 the CYA commitment of M who was 14 at time of offense.
  • Juvenile court has discretion to consider alternatives to CYA commitment for CYA parolee.
  • Commitment to CYA is within sound discretion of juvenile court.
  • Juvenile court not required to make and enter express findings which indicate reasons for order of commitment to CYA.
  • Less restrictive placement need not be attempted before CYA commitment.
  • Juvenile system’s underlying goal of rehabilitation sufficiently distinct from adult criminal system to support confinement at CYA into adulthood for juvenile offenses without jury trial.
  • CYA commitment held improper for first offender.
  • CYA commitment on grounds of punishment and public safety upheld as within court’s discretion.
  • Court’s referring to M as undocumented alien, his border crossings and youth camp’s proximity to Mexico, indicated consideration of M as flight risk, not of alien status; CYA placement proper.
  • On retraction of CYA’s refusal to accept minor, which had been based on misperception of severity of his offense, it was w/in court’s discretion to recommit him.
  • 16-yr. old’s "life w/possibility of parole" for attempted murder not tantamount to life sentence required by W&I §1731.5 for CYA ineligibility; Ladino disapproved.
  • Statements by juvenile court that minor who is not very serious offender will benefit by treatment provided by CYA justify commitment.
  • CYA commitment upheld where court believes it would benefit minor, and other, more appropriate disposition, is unavailable.
  • Commitment to CYA for misdemeanor approved where reasonable alternatives exhausted.
  • Trial court must obtain CYA presentence evaluation even when minor defendant presently ineligible for commitment to CYA.
  • Cases discussing CYA commitment.


    •