In re Kevin C. CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from a judgment
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. JCM245034
- Trial judge
- Marissa Bejarano
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed and remanded with instructions.
- Area
- delinquency
- Panel
- Michele M. Castillo (author), O'Rourke
Analysis
The juvenile court adjudicated Kevin C. as a ward of the court for four counts of felony vandalism and set a maximum confinement period of four years but failed to expressly declare whether the offenses were misdemeanors or felonies as required by Welfare and Institutions Code section 702. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in all other respects but remanded the case with instructions for the juvenile court to make the requisite declaration.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Failure to declare offenses as misdemeanors or felonies under Welf. & Inst. Code, § 702“the juvenile court never explicitly declared, at any hearing, that it was aware of its discretion, or exercised its discretion, to treat the offenses as misdemeanors or felonies.” | de novo | error (procedure) | agree with court agree with court |
Authorities
- relied: In re F.M. (2023) 14 Cal.5th 701 — Establishes that for wobbler offenses, the juvenile court must expressly declare the offense a misdemeanor or felony at a hearing to show it exercised its discretion, and that this error is not forfeited by failure to object.
- relied: In re Manzy W. (1997) 14 Cal.4th 1199 — Holds that neither the pleading, minute order, nor setting of a felony-level period of confinement may substitute for an express declaration by the juvenile court regarding the classification of the offense.
- relied: People v. Sandoval (2007) 41 Cal.4th 825 — States that sentencing decisions are generally reviewed for abuse of discretion and that a failure to exercise discretion may constitute an abuse of discretion.
- relied: People v. Carbajal (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1114 — Defines abuse of discretion as a decision that is arbitrary, capricious, or exceeds the bounds of reason under the circumstances.
- relied: People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847 — Authorizes the use of a memorandum opinion to resolve matters where the parties have reached a stipulation or concession on the legal issue.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly applies the mandatory requirements of Welfare and Institutions Code section 702 and the precedents set in In re F.M. and In re Manzy W. It accurately identifies that the record lacks the necessary express declaration of discretion, justifying the remand.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionThe juvenile court found true four counts of felony vandalism, declared Kevin C. a ward, placed him on probation, and set a four-year maximum confinement term without expressly declaring whether the wobbler offenses were misdemeanors or felonies under Welfare and Institutions Code section 702. On appeal, the People conceded the omission, and the Court of Appeal affirmed in all other respects but remanded with directions for the juvenile court to expressly declare on the record whether each count is a misdemeanor or felony.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Juvenile court's failure to expressly declare under Welfare and Institutions Code section 702 whether the four wobbler vandalism counts were misdemeanors or felonies“the juvenile court never explicitly declared, at any hearing, that it was aware of its discretion, or exercised its discretion, to treat the offenses as misdemeanors or felonies.” | abuse of discretion | error (discretion) | agree with court Section 702 mandates an express declaration for wobblers, and Manzy W. and F.M. hold that minute orders, pleadings, and felony-level confinement terms cannot substitute for the declaration; absent record evidence that the court knew of and exercised its discretion, remand is required. The opinion correctly applies this binding Supreme Court authority, notes the claim is not forfeited, and the People conceded the point. |
Authorities
- relied: In re F.M. (2023) 14 Cal.5th 701 — A juvenile court must expressly declare at a hearing whether a wobbler is a misdemeanor or felony so the record shows it was aware of and exercised its discretion; the claim is not forfeited by failure to object.
- relied: In re Manzy W. (1997) 14 Cal.4th 1199 — Neither the pleading, minute order, nor setting of a felony-level confinement period substitutes for the section 702 declaration; absent record evidence of an exercise of discretion, remand is required.
- relied: People v. Sandoval (2007) 41 Cal.4th 825 — Sentencing decisions are reviewed for abuse of discretion, and a failure to exercise discretion may itself be an abuse of discretion.
- relied: People v. Carbajal (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1114 — A court abuses its discretion when its decision is arbitrary, capricious, or exceeds the bounds of reason.
- relied: People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847 — Appellate courts may resolve conceded or straightforward matters by memorandum opinion.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion applies the controlling Supreme Court decisions in Manzy W. and F.M. to an undisputed record and reaches the remedy those cases prescribe—remand for an express section 702 declaration. The concession by the People and the brevity of the memorandum opinion leave no argument unaddressed.
Opinion
Filed 1/28/26 In re Kevin C. 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 KEVIN C., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. D085671 THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. JCM245034) v. KEVIN C., Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Marissa Bejarano, Judge. Affirmed and remanded with instructions. Lisa A. Kopelman, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Christopher P. Beesley and Cobi S. Furdek, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. Kevin C. was charged with four counts of felony vandalism. (Pen. Code, § 594, subds. (a), (b)(1)). Following an adjudication hearing, the juvenile court found true all four counts. The juvenile court (1) declared Kevin a ward of the court, (2) placed him on probation, and (3) set the maximum sentence of confinement at four years. Kevin contends, and the People concede, that the case must be remanded for the juvenile court to declare the four offenses misdemeanors or felonies as required by Welfare and Institutions Code section 702. Resolving this matter by memorandum opinion (People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847, 851-854), we accept the People’s concession and remand for the juvenile court to declare the counts to be either misdemeanors or felonies. Crimes punishable as either a misdemeanor or a felony at the discretion of the sentencing court are known as wobblers. (In re F.M. (2023) 14 Cal.5th 701, 704.) If a minor commits a wobbler, “the court shall declare the offense to be a misdemeanor or felony.” (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 702.) The juvenile court must make this declaration at a hearing so the record expressly reflects the court was “‘aware of, and exercised its discretion’” to treat the offense as either a misdemeanor or a felony. (F.M., at pp. 705, 716- 717.) “[N]either the pleading, the minute order, nor the setting of a felony- level period of physical confinement may substitute for a declaration by the juvenile court.” (In re Manzy W. (1997) 14 Cal.4th 1199, 1208.) Absent a juvenile court’s express declaration, or other record evidence establishing, it was aware of and exercised its discretion, the matter must be remanded for the requisite declaration to be made. (Id. at p. 1209.) A claim of section 702 error is not forfeited by the defense’s failure to object in the juvenile court. (F.M., at pp. 710-711.) We generally review sentencing decisions for abuse of discretion. (People v. Sandoval (2007) 41 Cal.4th 825, 847.) A court abuses its discretion when its decision is “arbitrary or capricious or exceeds the bounds of reason”
2 under the circumstances. (People v. Carbajal (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1114, 1121 [cleaned up].) “A failure to exercise discretion also may constitute an abuse of discretion.” (Sandoval, at pp. 847-848.) Although parts of the record—including the minute order, the felony- level punishment imposed, and the court’s statements during charging and adjudication—reflect that Kevin’s offenses were treated as felonies, the juvenile court never explicitly declared, at any hearing, that it was aware of its discretion, or exercised its discretion, to treat the offenses as misdemeanors or felonies. (See F.M., 14 Cal.5th at p. 709; Manzy W., 14 Cal.4th at p. 1210.) Thus, as the People concede, the record does not reflect the trial court was aware of and exercised its discretion to treat the offenses as either misdemeanors or felonies. (F.M., at p. 712.) Accordingly, we agree with the parties that the matter must be remanded for the court to exercise this discretion.
3 DISPOSITION We remand and direct the juvenile court to expressly declare on the record whether Kevin’s four counts of vandalism are misdemeanors or felonies consistent with this opinion. In all other respects, we affirm.
CASTILLO, J.
WE CONCUR:
O’ROURKE, Acting P. J.
HUFFMAN, J.* * Retired Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution. 4
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Sandoval S148917 · 2007-07-19
- People v. Garcia F034831 · 2002-04-17
- People v. Manzy W. S051463 · 1997-02-20
- People v. Carbajal S036146 · 1995-08-14