In re Ezekiel D. CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D084924 · 2025-06-24 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from a judgment
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. J245962
Trial judge: Marissa A. Bejarano
Outcome: remanded — Remanded with directions.
Area: delinquency
Panel: William S. Dato (author), Judith D. McConnell, Joan K. Irion

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T03:46Z · confidence high

The juvenile court adjudicated the minor delinquent for robbery and assault but failed to expressly declare whether the assault offense was a misdemeanor or a felony as required by law. The appellate court remanded the case with directions for the juvenile court to make the required declaration on the record.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Failure to declare whether the assault offense (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(4)) was a misdemeanor or a felony at disposition. “Here, the court failed to declare whether the assault was a misdemeanor or felony, and nothing in the record establishes the court was aware of, or exercised, its discretion in making that determination.”	de novo	error	agree with court agree with court

Authorities

relied: In re Manzy W. (1997) 14 Cal.4th 1199 — Juvenile courts must make an explicit declaration as to whether an offense is a felony or misdemeanor to ensure they are exercising their discretionary authority.
relied: In re F.M. (2023) 14 Cal.5th 701 — The court must state at any of the hearings that it was exercising its discretion to treat the offense as a felony.
relied: In re Kenneth H. (1983) 33 Cal.3d 616 — Accords with the requirement for explicit declaration of felony or misdemeanor status.
relied: In re Ricky H. (1981) 30 Cal.3d 176 — Accords with the requirement for explicit declaration of felony or misdemeanor status.
relied: People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847 — Supports the use of a memorandum opinion for this type of case.

The appellate opinion: sound — sound

How this analysis was made · dispute it

unusual disposition

A model's reading — claude-fable-5-1, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:29Z · confidence medium

The juvenile court entered true findings on robbery and assault (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(4)) after Ezekiel's admissions, stayed an Urban Camp commitment, and released him to home supervision with GPS monitoring, but never declared whether the wobbler assault offense was a felony or a misdemeanor. The Court of Appeal, in a memorandum opinion accepting the People's concession, remanded with directions that the juvenile court expressly declare on the record whether count 3 is a misdemeanor or a felony under Welfare and Institutions Code section 702.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Juvenile court's failure to expressly declare whether the section 245, subdivision (a)(4) assault (a wobbler) was a felony or misdemeanor as required by Welfare and Institutions Code section 702 “Here, the court failed to declare whether the assault was a misdemeanor or felony, and nothing in the record establishes the court was aware of, or exercised, its discretion in making that determination.”	de novo	error (procedure)	agree with court Section 702 and Manzy W. require an explicit declaration for wobbler offenses; the court correctly applied Manzy W.'s rule that pleading, minute order, or felony-level confinement cannot substitute, and correctly found the record devoid of any indication the court knew of its discretion to treat the offense as a misdemeanor, so remand rather than harmless-error affirmance was proper under Manzy W. and F.M.

Authorities

relied: In re Manzy W. (1997) 14 Cal.4th 1199 — Section 702 requires an explicit declaration whether a wobbler is a felony or misdemeanor; the pleading, minute order, or felony-level confinement period cannot substitute, and remand is required unless the record shows the court was aware of and exercised its discretion.
relied: In re F.M. (2023) 14 Cal.5th 701 — The juvenile court must state at any of the hearings that it is exercising its discretion to treat the wobbler offense as a felony.
relied: In re Kenneth H. (1983) 33 Cal.3d 616 — Section 702 mandates an express declaration to ensure the juvenile court is aware of and exercises its discretion over felony/misdemeanor classification.
relied: In re Ricky H. (1981) 30 Cal.3d 176 — Juvenile court must make an explicit felony/misdemeanor declaration for wobbler offenses under section 702.
relied: People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847 — Appellate courts may appropriately resolve cases by memorandum opinion.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion applies the controlling Supreme Court authority (Manzy W., F.M.) directly to an uncontested record and reaches the result those cases compel, correctly rejecting references to the offense as a felony as a substitute for the required declaration. Although brief, it addresses the harmless-error question Manzy W. permits by finding nothing in the record showed awareness of discretion, so no argument is left unanswered.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

Opinion

Filed 6/24/25 In re Ezekiel D. CA4/1 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.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

In re EZEKIEL D., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. D084924 THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. J245962)

v. EZEKIEL D., Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Marissa A. Bejarano, Judge. Remanded with directions. Thien Huong Tran, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney General, A. Natasha Cortina and Genevieve Herbert, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION1 The People filed an amended petition charging Ezekiel D., a minor, with multiple offenses arising out of two separate incidents: robbery (Pen. Code, § 211; count 1), resisting an officer (id., § 148; count 2), and assault by force likely to cause great bodily injury (id., § 245, subd. (a)(4); count 3). It was further alleged that Ezekiel personally used a deadly and dangerous weapon, a knife, in committing the robbery. (id., § 12022, subd. (b)(1).) Following his admission to the robbery and assault charges, the juvenile court entered true findings on both counts and dismissed the remaining allegations. At disposition, the court stayed commitment to Urban Camp and released Ezekiel to home supervision with GPS monitoring. Ezekiel contends, and the People concede, that the case must be remanded for the juvenile court to declare whether his assault offense was a misdemeanor or a felony, as required by Welfare and Institutions Code section 702. Welfare and Institutions Code section 702 provides, in pertinent part, that where a “minor is found to have committed an offense which would in the case of an adult be punishable alternatively as a felony or a misdemeanor, the court shall declare the offense to be a misdemeanor or a felony.” The provision requires juvenile courts to make an explicit declaration as to whether an offense is a felony or misdemeanor to ensure that the courts are both aware of, and actually exercising, their discretionary authority. (In re Manzy W. (1997) 14 Cal.4th 1199, 1204 (Manzy W.); id. at p. 1207; accord, In re Kenneth H. (1983) 33 Cal.3d 616, 619; In re Ricky H. (1981) 30 Cal.3d 176, 191.)

1 We believe it appropriate to resolve this case by memorandum opinion. (See People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847, 853.) 2 As the People correctly point out, it is not enough for the offense to be identified as a felony at various points in the record, as “neither the pleading, the minute order, nor the setting of a felony-level period of physical confinement may substitute” for the declaration required of the court. (Manzy W., supra, 14 Cal.4th at p. 1208.) Instead, the court “must ‘ “ ‘state at any of the hearings’ ” ’ that it was exercising its discretion to treat the offense as a felony.” (In re F.M. (2023) 14 Cal.5th 701, 709; see also Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.790(a)(1) [“the court . . . must expressly declare on the record that it has made such consideration and must state its finding as to whether the offense is a misdemeanor or a felony”].) Here, the court failed to declare whether the assault was a misdemeanor or felony, and nothing in the record establishes the court was aware of, or exercised, its discretion in making that determination. Although the assault was charged as a felony and referred to as a felony by the juvenile court at the adjudication hearing, the record as a whole is devoid of any evidence demonstrating the court was aware the assault could be treated as a misdemeanor. Accordingly, we agree with the parties that the matter must be remanded. DISPOSITION We remand and direct the juvenile court to expressly declare on the record whether count 3, assault in violation of Penal Code section 245, subdivision (a)(4), is a misdemeanor or felony. DATO, J. WE CONCUR:

McCONNELL, P. J.

IRION, J.

Cites, in this corpus

People v. Garcia F034831 · 2002-04-17
People v. Manzy W. S051463 · 1997-02-20
Meehan v. Kenneth H. S.F. 24497 · 1983-03-24
People v. Ricky H. S.F. 24273 · 1981-11-09