In Re Emiliano M.

This juvenile law case presents an issue related to that we decide today in In re Eddie M. (2003) 31 Cal.4th 480 [ 3 Cal.Rptr.3d 119 , 73 P.3d 1115 ] (Eddie M.). There we construe Welfare and Institutions Code section 777, as amended on March 7, 2000, by Proposition 21, the Gang Violence and Juvenile Crime Prevention Act of 1998 (Proposition 21). Section 777 has long allowed a more restrictive disposition where juvenile probationers previously found to have committed crimes under section 602 commit new misconduct. Among its many provisions, Proposition 21 limits section 777, as applied to persons under section 602 jurisdiction, to “allege[d]” probation violations “not amounting to . . . crime[s].” (§ 111, subd. (a)(2) (section 777(a)(2)).) In Eddie M., we conclude that section 777(a)(2) is not limited to probation violations that are inherently noncriminal in nature, but applies to any misconduct, criminal or noncriminal, so long as it is alleged only as a probation violation, not as a new juvenile crime.

Here, the Court of Appeal construed section 777(a)(2) in a manner contrary to Eddie M., thereby negating the application of another important provision of Proposition…