In re D.S. CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D067269 · 2015-10-15 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from a judgment
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. J228034
Trial judge: Aaron H. Katz
Outcome: reversed in part — Affirmed in part and disposition vacated in part and remanded with directions.
Area: delinquency
Panel: Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), Alex C. McDonald, Judith D. McConnell

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T06:07Z · confidence high

The trial court failed to rule on the minor's petition to reduce a felony receiving stolen property count to a misdemeanor under Proposition 47, operating under the mistaken belief that the law did not apply to juveniles. The Court of Appeal affirmed the other dispositional orders but remanded the case with directions for the juvenile court to rule on the merits of the petition.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Failure to rule on the petition to reduce the receiving stolen property count to a misdemeanor under Proposition 47 “Rather than undertake the dispositional role of the juvenile court we will order the case remanded to the juvenile court with directions to rule on the merits of the petition and to grant such relief as may be appropriate.”	unclear	error	agree with court The appellate court determined that the trial court's inaction was based on a legal error (the belief that Proposition 47 did not apply to juveniles) and that the appellate court should not perform the dispositional function itself. By remanding with specific directions to rule on the merits, the court effectively found the trial court's failure to act was improper and required correction.

Authorities

relied: Alejandro N. v. Superior Court (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 1209 — Proposition 47 applies to juvenile delinquency proceedings, entitling minors to reduction of felony dispositions where appropriate.
relied: People v. Rivera (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 1085 — Proposition 47 provides a mechanism for persons with felony sentences for certain wobbler offenses to petition for resentencing to misdemeanors.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is sound because it correctly identifies the controlling precedent (Alejandro N.) establishing that Proposition 47 applies to juveniles and appropriately respects the separation of powers by remanding the dispositional decision to the juvenile court rather than deciding it itself. The reasoning is concise and directly addresses the procedural posture and the legal error of the lower court.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

unusual disposition

A model's reading — claude-fable-5-1, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:31Z · confidence low

The juvenile court, apparently believing Proposition 47 did not apply to juvenile delinquency proceedings, declined to rule on the Minor's petition to reduce his felony receiving stolen property adjudication (Pen. Code, § 496, subd. (a)) to a misdemeanor, noting only that the term "may need to be reduced." The Court of Appeal, relying on its intervening decision in Alejandro N. that Proposition 47 applies to juveniles, declined to reduce the offense itself but remanded with directions to rule on the merits of the petition, affirming the dispositional orders in all other respects.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Juvenile court's failure to rule on the Minor's Proposition 47 (Pen. Code, § 1170.18) petition to reduce the felony receiving stolen property count to a misdemeanor, based on the view that Proposition 47 does not apply to juvenile delinquency cases “The difficulty presented by this record is that when the juvenile court acted on the petition it was under the mistaken view that Proposition 47 did not apply to juvenile delinquency cases.”	unclear	error (law misapplied)	agree with court Whether Proposition 47 applies to juvenile delinquency proceedings is a question of law, and the court's own published decision in Alejandro N. v. Superior Court (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 1209 held that it does. The juvenile court's premise was therefore wrong, and a remand to exercise the discretion section 1170.18 vests in the trial court (including any dangerousness determination) rather than reducing the offense on appeal is the appropriate remedy; the opinion does not state a standard of review, but none was needed for a pure legal question.
Remaining dispositional orders (other admitted offenses and overall disposition) “In all other respects the dispositional orders are affirmed.”	unclear	correct	agree with court The Minor raised no challenge to any other aspect of the disposition, and the opinion identifies none; affirmance of the unchallenged orders follows as a matter of course.

Authorities

relied: Alejandro N. v. Superior Court (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 1209 — Proposition 47 applies to juvenile delinquency proceedings, and juveniles are entitled to reduction of felony dispositions to misdemeanors where appropriate on the facts.
relied: People v. Rivera (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 1085 — Proposition 47 created a mechanism (§ 1170.18) by which persons who received felony sentences for certain wobbler offenses may petition to have them resentenced as misdemeanors.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion correctly identifies the juvenile court's legal error in light of Alejandro N. and properly leaves the merits of the section 1170.18 petition to the trial court, which holds the dispositional discretion under the statute. It is brief and omits any statement of the standard of review or discussion of the statute's dangerousness and eligibility criteria, but nothing more was required given the parties' agreement that reduction appeared warranted.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 10/15/15 In re D.S. 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 D.S., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. D067269 THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. J228034)

v. D.S., Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Aaron H.

Katz, Judge. Affirmed in part and disposition vacated in part and remanded with directions.

Amanda Fates, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Scott C. Taylor and Marvin E.

Mizell, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. D.S. (the Minor) admitted one count of receiving stolen property (Pen. Code,1 § 496, subd. (a)) and one count of misdemeanor vandalism (§ 594, subd. (a)(b)(2)(A)).

The Minor has also admitted various offenses in other petitions in juvenile court, including one offense for assault by force likely to produce great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(4)).

While the matter was pending in the juvenile court, the voters enacted Proposition 47 (§ 1170.18). In December 2014, the Minor petitioned the court to reduce the receiving count to a misdemeanor. During this time the San Diego Superior Court was apparently of the view that Proposition 47 did not apply to juveniles. As a result the court did not rule on the petition, but did observe "TERM MAY NEED TO BE REDUCED APPROPRIATELY UNDER PROPOSITION 47."

The Minor's appeal was filed before this court in Alejandro N. v. Superior Court (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 1209, determined that Proposition 47 does apply to juvenile delinquency proceedings. The Minor argues this court should act to reduce the receiving offense to a misdemeanor. We decline to do so, but will remand the case to the juvenile court with directions to rule on the petition for resentencing.2

DISCUSSION

Proposition 47 provides a mechanism by which persons who received felony sentences for certain wobbler offenses may petition the court to resentence the offenses to misdemeanors where appropriate. (People v. Rivera (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 1085, 1091- 1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified.

2 The facts of the offenses are not relevant in light of our disposition of the case. 2 1092.) The parties agree the record seems to indicate that the disposition of the receiving offense should probably be reduced to a misdemeanor and the Minor's maximum time exposure should be reduced. The difficulty presented by this record is that when the juvenile court acted on the petition it was under the mistaken view that Proposition 47 did not apply to juvenile delinquency cases. As we have indicated we have since held the proposition does apply to juveniles and that they are entitled to reduction of felony dispositions where appropriate on the facts. (Alejandro N. v. Superior Court, supra, 238 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1216-1217.)

Rather than undertake the dispositional role of the juvenile court we will order the case remanded to the juvenile court with directions to rule on the merits of the petition and to grant such relief as may be appropriate.

DISPOSITION

The case is remanded to the juvenile court with directions to rule on the merits of the petition to reduce the disposition of the receiving count (§ 496, subd. (a)), and to grant such relief as may be appropriate. In all other respects the dispositional orders are affirmed.

HUFFMAN, J.

WE CONCUR:

McCONNELL, P. J.

McDONALD, J.

Cites, in this corpus

Alejandro N. v. Superior Court D067445 · 2015-07-23
People v. Rivera H041742 · 2015-01-29