In Re Jermaine B.

People v. Jermaine B.

Good Law
1994 Cal. App. LEXIS 30·21 Cal. App. 4th 1280·26 Cal. Rptr. 2d 612·94 Daily Journal DAR 605·94 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 393
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 18, 1994C015913California1,325 words

Opinion

Opinion

Sims, J.

Following a jurisdiction hearing, the minor, Jermaine B., was found to have violated Penal Code section 459 (burglary) and Vehicle Code section 10851, subdivision (a) (vehicle theft).

At the disposition hearing, the juvenile court continued the minor as a ward of the court and committed him to the California Youth Authority (CYA). The minor has appealed.

In an unpublished portion of this opinion, we consider and reject the minor’s contentions that prejudicial error occurred at the jurisdiction hearing.

In this published portion of the opinion, we consider the minor’s contention that the juvenile court erroneously refused to consider an alternative to CYA commitment on the ground rule 1493(e) of the California Rules of Court mandated commitment to CYA because the minor was a CYA parolee. We shall conclude the minor’s interpretation of rule 1493(e) is correct and the juvenile court erred in concluding it had no discretion to consider dispositional alternatives to CYA. We shall therefore reverse the disposition order and remand for a new disposition hearing.

Facts

Discussion

I, II

III

At the disposition hearing, the minor’s counsel wished to present evidence and…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.