People v. J.G.

3 Cal. App. 5th 521, 207 Cal. Rptr. 3d 633, 2016 WL 4613349, 2016 Cal. App. LEXIS 782
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal
DecidedSeptember 6, 2016
DocketA147463
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 3 Cal. App. 5th 521 (People v. J.G.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
People v. J.G., 3 Cal. App. 5th 521, 207 Cal. Rptr. 3d 633, 2016 WL 4613349, 2016 Cal. App. LEXIS 782 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016).

Opinion

*523 Opinion

POLLAK, J.—

The minor appeals from a juvenile court order finding that his probation terminated “unsuccessfully” because he failed to pay restitution ordered as a condition of probation. We shall reverse the order upon concluding that unpaid restitution debts do not foreclose a finding of satisfactory completion of probation. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 786, subd. (c)(2).) 1

Statement of Facts and Juvenile Court Proceedings

Minor was 17 years old in January 2011 when he committed a residential burglary. (Pen. Code, §§ 459, 460, subd. (a).) He was adjudged a ward of the juvenile court and placed in a youth rehabilitation center for nine months. (§ 602, subd. (a).) Minor was ordered to pay victim restitution of $2,100 and a restitution fine of $100. (§ 730.6, subds. (a)(2)(B), (b)(1).)

Minor arrived at the youth rehabilitation center in April 2011 and was granted early release in September 2011, graduating from the program in six months. In a later report to the court, a probation officer stated: “According to institutional records and staff, [minor’s] adjustment to the program was very good. [He] abided by institutional rules; he adhered to staff directions; he interacted well with his peers; and he performed well in school. As part of his therapeutic treatment plan at the [center], [minor] participated in anger management, impact of crime on victims, life skills, and substance abuse programs.”

Minor returned home. It was reported at a December 2011 review hearing that minor “has fully complied with the conditions of his probation. . . . [¶] Regarding his adjustment at home, his attitude and behavior have been good according to his mother. [She] reports that [minor] had been following her rules, completing household chores, abiding by his curfew, and contributing to household expenses. Each time [the probation officer] has spoken to [minor’s mother], she has related nothing but positive information regarding her son’s conduct at home. [¶] As to school, [minor] has been participating in the GED program” and “hopes to take his GED examination within the next few months.” He has been working part time in a restaurant. “As to his other conditions of probation, [minor] has been drug tested on a regular basis and has not tested positive for any illicit substances. [Minor] has reported to probation as directed and he has been available for home visits. According to probation records, he has not committed any new law violations.” Minor had not yet paid restitution but said he “expects to begin making payments in the *524 near future.” The probation officer concluded by noting minor’s ‘“positive adjustment in the community.” As recommended by the probation department, the court ordered minor’s parole ‘“terminated successfully” and maintained his wardship. The order was issued on December 29, 2011, when minor was age 18.

No further proceedings were had until a January 26, 2016 review hearing, when minor was age 22. The probation department filed a report asking for termination of wardship because minor’s age put him beyond the jurisdiction of the juvenile court. 2 The report stated that minor “perform[ed] well in the community” from the time of the 2011 review hearing to date. Minor “continued to follow his parents’ rules at home, obtained his GED,” “obtained employment” at a restaurant, and was free of any law violations. Minor had not paid restitution.

At the hearing, minor’s counsel asked the court to vacate wardship and “dismiss successfully,” arguing that unpaid restitution was not a basis for finding unsuccessful completion of probation. Counsel relied upon section 786, subdivision (c)(2), which provides: “An unfulfilled order or condition of restitution, including a restitution fine that can be converted to a civil judgment under Section 730.6 or an unpaid restitution fee shall not be deemed to constitute unsatisfactory completion of supervision or probation . . . .” The prosecutor argued that the restitution order could not be converted to a civil judgment “at this point in time,” when minor was over 21 years old, so restitution remained an “unfulfilled” condition of probation preventing a finding that probation was successfully completed. The court appears to have accepted the prosecutor’s argument and, believing it had no authority to issue a civil judgment, found it had no authority to find a successful completion of probation. The court stated, “if I have the authority to issue an abstract of judgment, I can make it successful” but “if I don’t have authority for an abstract of judgment, it will be unsuccessful completion.” Defense counsel, apparently believing the court had no authority to issue a civil judgment for the unpaid restitution, presented an estoppel argument. Counsel maintained that minor should not be penalized by the probation department’s failure to set a review hearing before minor turned age 21, when the court “still had jurisdiction” to convert the restitution orders to a civil judgment and terminate minor’s probation successfully. The court was not persuaded: “I’m going to terminate probation unsuccessfully. There have been no attempts to make payments. He’s had extra years to make those payments and nothing has been paid. He knew that was an obligation of probation. [¶] So the probation is terminated unsuccessfully. The wardship is vacated. That closes the case.”

*525 Discussion

Minor contends the juvenile court erred by ruling that his probation terminated unsuccessfully. Consideration of the contention requires, as an initial matter, clarification of the meaning and consequences of an order issued at the end of a term of probation that adjudicates its completion to be unsuccessful or unsatisfactory. When referring to the completion of probation, judges and litigants often use the terms “successful” and “satisfactory” interchangeably. But the terms are not always interchangeable and even the same term can have different statutory definitions. Differing statutes require that care be taken to identify the statute at issue, use the correct statutory term, and apply the definition specific to that statute to avoid confusion as to the nature of the court’s finding and its effect. 3

The juvenile court’s minute order terminated probation “unsuccessfully” without statutory citation. It is clear, however, that the finding relates to section 786, which was the central topic of discussion at the review hearing. Section 786, subdivision (a), uses the term satisfactory completion of probation, and we shall use that term here when referring to the juvenile court’s finding.

Satisfactory completion of probation under section 786 “shall be deemed to have occurred if the person has no new findings of wardship or conviction for a felony offense or a misdemeanor involving moral turpitude during the period of supervision or probation and if he or she has not failed to substantially comply with the reasonable orders of supervision or probation that are within his or her capacity to perform.” (§ 786, subd. (c)(1).) Satisfactory completion of probation under section 786 has significant benefits for a juvenile offender.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

In re K.B.
California Court of Appeal, 2024
In re Nicholas P. CA1/2
California Court of Appeal, 2023
Person v. A.V.
11 Cal. App. 5th 697 (California Court of Appeal, 2017)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
3 Cal. App. 5th 521, 207 Cal. Rptr. 3d 633, 2016 WL 4613349, 2016 Cal. App. LEXIS 782, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-jg-calctapp-2016.