In re S.L. CA2/3

BACKGROUND

After being stopped by a police officer for riding a bicycle without a helmet, 16- year-old S.L. admitted he was a member of a Lancaster tagging crew and had been responsible for five or six instances of graffiti vandalism. At the adjudication hearing, however, S.L. denied having committed any of the charged counts of vandalism and testified he admitted having done so only because he had been afraid of the officer. The juvenile court found all five counts true, declared S.L. a ward of the court, and ordered him home on probation.

CONTENTION

The judgment is flawed because there was no determination made regarding S.L.’s eligibility and suitability for a deferred entry of judgment (section 790, et seq.).

DISCUSSION

S.L. contends, and the Attorney General properly concedes, that the judgment in this case must be vacated and the matter remanded for further proceedings because the prosecutor failed to determine S.L.’s eligibility for the deferred entry of judgment program. 1. Legal principles. “ ‘The DEJ [deferred entry of judgment program] provisions of section 790 et seq. were enacted as part of Proposition 21, The Gang Violence and Juvenile Crime Prevention Act of…