DEJ hearing in California

2009In In re Kenneth J., supra, 158 Cal.App.4th 973 , a minor completed the contested jurisdictional hearing without ever requesting DEJ; thus, the juvenile court did not err by not holding a DEJ hearing absent the minor’s request.

2009In In re Kenneth J., supra, 158 Cal.App.4th 973 , a minor completed the contested jurisdictional hearing without ever requesting DEJ; thus, the juvenile court did not err by not holding a DEJ hearing absent the minor’s request.

2009In In re Kenneth J., supra, 158 Cal.App.4th 973 , a minor completed the contested jurisdictional hearing without ever requesting DEJ; thus, the juvenile court did not err by not holding a DEJ hearing absent the minor's request. ( Id. at pp. 978-980.) In In re Usef S. (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 276 [ 72 Cal.Rptr.3d 612 ], a contested jurisdictional hearing was completed without the minor ever requesting DEJ.

2009In In re Kenneth J., supra, 158 Cal.App.4th 973 , a minor completed the contested jurisdictional hearing without ever requesting DEJ; thus, the juvenile court did not err by not holding a DEJ hearing absent the minor's request. ( Id. at pp. 978-980.) In In re Usef S. (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 276 [ 72 Cal.Rptr.3d 612 ], a contested jurisdictional hearing was completed without the minor ever requesting DEJ.

2020However, in his reply brief, minor contends he was never served with the notification. 6. been noticed of his DEJ eligibility.” Minor contends the jurisdiction and disposition orders therefore must be conditionally reversed pending completion of a DEJ suitability hearing, relying on In re Luis B. (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1117 [remanding for DEJ consideration where the prosecutor failed to determine eligibility for DEJ or provide notice, the juvenile court failed to conduct DEJ inquiry, and the minor was found to have committed felony offenses], In re C.W. (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 654 [remanding fo

2015(C.W., supra, 208 Cal.App.4th at p. 662 .) 4 In re D.L. concluded that the failure to provide the minor with notice of when a DEJ hearing would take place amounted to a denial of due process because D.L. did not receive adequate notice or an opportunity to be heard, which “deprived [him] of fundamental procedural rights.” ( 206 Cal.App.4th at p. 1245 .) Trenton likewise argues that insufficient notice here deprived him of his due process rights under the federal and California constitutions.

2020However, in his reply brief, minor contends he was never served with the notification. 6. been noticed of his DEJ eligibility.” Minor contends the jurisdiction and disposition orders therefore must be conditionally reversed pending completion of a DEJ suitability hearing, relying on In re Luis B. (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1117 [remanding for DEJ consideration where the prosecutor failed to determine eligibility for DEJ or provide notice, the juvenile court failed to conduct DEJ inquiry, and the minor was found to have committed felony offenses], In re C.W. (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 654 [remanding fo

2014(Luis B., supra, 142 Cal.App.4th at p. 1123 .) Rather, in its order remanding the case to the trial court for a DEJ hearing the Court of Appeal directed: "If, as a result of those proceedings, the juvenile court grants DEJ to defendant, it shall issue an order vacating the findings and orders.

2023(See People v. Barrajas (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 926, 928 .) 3 Section 1016.5, subdivision (a) requires that “[p]rior to acceptance of a plea of guilty or nolo contendere . . . , the court 4 Rombeau then pleaded guilty to counts 1 and 3.

2023Code, § 6500.)” (In re Jeffrey M. (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 1017, 1022 .) To be eligible for deferred entry of judgment, must a person still be a minor at the time of the DEJ hearing? “‘In construing a statute, we seek “‘to ascertain the intent of the enacting legislative body so that we may adopt the construction that best effectuates the purpose of the law.’” [Citations.] Our analysis starts with the statutory language because it generally indicates legislative intent. [Citations.] . . . [Citations.]’ . . . ‘[T]he language [of a statute] is construed in the context of the statute as a whole and

2023Code, § 6500.)” (In re Jeffrey M. (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 1017, 1022 .) To be eligible for deferred entry of judgment, must a person still be a minor at the time of the DEJ hearing? “‘In construing a statute, we seek “‘to ascertain the intent of the enacting legislative body so that we may adopt the construction that best effectuates the purpose of the law.’” [Citations.] Our analysis starts with the statutory language because it generally indicates legislative intent. [Citations.] . . . [Citations.]’ . . . ‘[T]he language [of a statute] is construed in the context of the statute as a whole and

2023Rombeau concluded that under case law “the focus is on a ‘defendant’s own error.’ ” (People v. Mejia, supra, 36 Cal.App.5th at p. 871 , italics omitted.) The People opposed Rombeau’s motion and appended Rombeau’s 2014 executed felony advisement of rights, waiver, and plea form to their opposition.

2023Code, § 6500.)” (In re Jeffrey M. (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 1017, 1022 .) To be eligible for deferred entry of judgment, must a person still be a minor at the time of the DEJ hearing? “‘In construing a statute, we seek “‘to ascertain the intent of the enacting legislative body so that we may adopt the construction that best effectuates the purpose of the law.’” [Citations.] Our analysis starts with the statutory language because it generally indicates legislative intent. [Citations.] . . . [Citations.]’ . . . ‘[T]he language [of a statute] is construed in the context of the statute as a whole and

2023Code, § 6500.)” (In re Jeffrey M. (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 1017, 1022 .) To be eligible for deferred entry of judgment, must a person still be a minor at the time of the DEJ hearing? “‘In construing a statute, we seek “‘to ascertain the intent of the enacting legislative body so that we may adopt the construction that best effectuates the purpose of the law.’” [Citations.] Our analysis starts with the statutory language because it generally indicates legislative intent. [Citations.] . . . [Citations.]’ . . . ‘[T]he language [of a statute] is construed in the context of the statute as a whole and

2022(Id. at p. 1121.) In reaching this conclusion, the court noted that the trial court has ultimate discretion to rule on the suitability of the minor 6. for DEJ, and stated: ‘The court may grant DEJ to the minor summarily under appropriate circumstances [citation], and if not must conduct a hearing at which “the court shall consider the declaration of the prosecuting attorney, any report and recommendations from the probation department, and any other relevant material provided by the child or other interested parties.” [Citation.] While the court retains discretion to deny DEJ to an eligible mi

2019The prosecutor stated he had handed her “the DEJ form.” No DEJ hearing was ever set, nor was further mention made of DEJ during any of the proceedings. 13 All references to rules are to the California Rules of Court. 15. “[A] juvenile court is not required to rule on a minor’s possible suitability for a DEJ where the minor is properly advised of his or her DEJ eligibility and fails to admit the charges or waive the jurisdictional hearing because such a failure amounts to a rejection of the DEJ’s expedited procedure. [Citations.] [¶] But where, as here, the minor is not properly notified of DEJ

2019The prosecutor stated he had handed her “the DEJ form.” No DEJ hearing was ever set, nor was further mention made of DEJ during any of the proceedings. 13 All references to rules are to the California Rules of Court. 15. “[A] juvenile court is not required to rule on a minor’s possible suitability for a DEJ where the minor is properly advised of his or her DEJ eligibility and fails to admit the charges or waive the jurisdictional hearing because such a failure amounts to a rejection of the DEJ’s expedited procedure. [Citations.] [¶] But where, as here, the minor is not properly notified of DEJ

2014(See § 791, subd. (b); rule 5.800(d)(3).) Indeed, in Sergio R., supra, 106 Cal.App.4th at page 608 , the court relied almost entirely on the circumstances of the charged offenses in affirming the juvenile court's order denying DEJ. 10 In sum, the juvenile court acted properly in holding a DEJ hearing after being advised about the prosecutor's failure to consider Erik's eligibility for DEJ.

2014(See § 791, subd. (b); rule 5.800(d)(3).) Indeed, in Sergio R., supra, 106 Cal.App.4th at page 608 , the court relied almost entirely on the circumstances of the charged offenses in affirming the juvenile court's order denying DEJ. 10 In sum, the juvenile court acted properly in holding a DEJ hearing after being advised about the prosecutor's failure to consider Erik's eligibility for DEJ.