California Criminal Defense Blog

As lawyers working within the California juvenile justice system, we don’t necessarily see what happens after a petition is sustained and a juvenile gets remanded to custody. But now we can get a glimpse of that part of the story through the photographs of Richard Ross, a Getty Museum Principal Photographer and former Guggenheim Fellow.

Ross has spent the past five years photographing over 1,000 juvenile detainees in lockups and camps across the country, including California. A sample of his images are published in the current issue of Harper’s Magazine and on the photographer’s website.

In the introduction to his collection (titled “Juvenile-In-Justice”), Ross writes that his images are “unbiased photographic and textual evidence of a system that houses more than 100,000 kids every day.” His medium, he writes, “is a conscience.”

Our medium as lawyers is legal process…but hopefully it’s also a process infused with conscience. Our California Criminal Defense Attorneys operating within the California juvenile justice system appreciate the opportunity to view and reflect upon photographs and other artistic works that bring a different sensibility and perspective to the work we do.

Thanks to a very misguided attempt at a joke, a teenage girl is dealing with a humiliating blow to her reputation and a teenage boy is doing time at a county juvenile probation camp.

Willfully using someone’s Facebook password for an unlawful purpose is a crime of identity theft in California.

In a recent California Court of Appeals decision, In re Rolando S., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law, the Fifth Appellate District affirmed a sustained juvenile petition against a minor for violating California Penal Code 530.5, one of several laws relating to identity theft in California.

In this case, after receiving the victim’s Facebook password via text message, the minor accessed the victim’s Facebook account, altered her profile in a vulgar manner and posted offensive and sexually suggestive messages on the walls of other teens.

The court concluded that the offense was “willfull” even though the minor received the victim’s password in a passive manner because he “was a free agent when securing the password for his future use.”

The court further ruled that the minor used the victim’s personal identifying information for an unlawful purpose, as required for identity theft in California.

Even if the minor’s inappropriate conduct was intended as a joke and did not rise to the level of annoying or molesting a child, the conduct could constitute “unlawful conduct” in the form of a civil intentional tort or a violation of a criminal law that deals with annoying people by way of an electronic communication device.

A helpful flowchart illustrating the rather complicated process of California juvenile delinquency cases in California can be found at California Juvenile Court Process.

With the fourth of July comes rowdy teens…drinking, being drunk in public, drinking and driving, shooting off guns, etc. Oftentimes kids just don’t think, so parents it’s up to you. Talk to your kids about the dangers of violating California’s laws. Juvenile convictions don’t just “go away” once you turn 18 – they can remain on your record and haunt you for life. If your child performs just one careless act this holiday weekend…and ends up with a California sustained juvenile petition…it won’t just go away.

In California, a sustained juvenile petition is akin to an adult criminal conviction. This means that it will be as if he/she has a conviction on his/her record. Not only will that make “day to day” living difficult when it comes to securing employment, higher education, loans, etc. but sustained juvenile petitions for serious or violent felonies may even be used as “strikes” pursuant to California’s three strikes law if he/she gets into more legal trouble in the future.

Kids often think they’re invincible and fail to look past the moment. With your help, they can understand that their actions today affect their lives tomorrow.

The most recent twist in the shocking alleged shooting death of an Orange County Neo-Nazi activist by his 10-year-old son is the filing of a criminal complaint against his stepmother alleging child endangerment.

There’s no question the 26-year-old stepmother will be dealt with if at all by the adult criminal justice system. But what about her 10-year-old stepson? When can prosecutors file charges against a minor in adult court in California?

The answer is it depends…but in no event does California law allow a 10-year-old to be charged with murder in adult court…no matter how serious.

Generally speaking, juvenile delinquency court in California has jurisdiction over minors who violate laws when they are under the age of 18. The proceedings are considered civil as opposed to criminal in nature and a sustained petition in juvenile delinquency court leads to a juvenile “adjudication” as opposed to a “conviction.”

But in very serious cases, minors who are 14 and over can be charged under the general law in courts of criminal jurisdiction. That means they can be tried in adult criminal court. Under Welfare & Institutions Code Section 707, those cases include murder, robbery, carjacking, kidnapping and committing a felony while personally armed with a firearm, under certain circumstances.

Indeed, in the most serious cases, minors 14 and over must be must be tried in adult court. Under W&I Sec. Section 602(b), those cases include special circumstances murder where the prosecutor alleges the minor personally killed the victim and certain kinds of sex offenses.

No more life in prison without possibility of parole for juvenile offenders convicted of nonhomicide crimes. So says the Supreme Court.

Such a punishment contravenes the evolving standards of decency through which we evaluate the Eighth Amendment. Such a punishment leaves no room for redemption.

Here is part of what Justice Kennedy wrote for the majority in Graham v. Florida:

The juvenile should not be deprived of the opportunity to achieve maturity of judgment and self-recognition of human worth and potential…Life in prison without the possibility of parole gives no chance for fulfillment outside prison walls, no chance for reconciliation with society, no hope.

The Court’s message is gratifying, especially for those of us in California (one of the eleven states that have imposed this kind of sentence) who face significant challenges presented by a tough-on-crime justice system and correspondingly overburdened prison system.

Perhaps the Court’s message will reverberate. Perhaps our justice system and correctional system can mature as well...and fulfill their potential.

Perhaps there’s room for redemption.

Perhaps the most relatively recent controversial product of the often criticized California felony-murder rule is Brandon Hein. Brandon Hein, then 17, was sentenced to life in prison for his involvement in the 1995 stabbing of another teenager. The case received much publicity based on the application of the felony-murder rule.

California’s felony-murder rule holds a defendant liable for murder if he or an accomplice kills another person during the commission of (1) specifically listed felonies, or (2) “inherently dangerous” felonies. Hein’s case involved an alleged robbery, which is one of the specifically listed felonies that triggers this rule.

Hein and the other teens charged in connection with the murder claimed that they went to a house to buy marijuana when a fist fight erupted. The fight ended when the victim (the 15-year old son of a Los Angeles Police Department veteran) was stabbed in the chest by one of the teens.

Prosecutors painted a different picture, saying that the boys went to the house to steal the marijuana. Because of California’s felony-murder rule, all of the teens involved in the fight were convicted as if each of them personally stabbed the victim. This was despite the fact that all of them denied even knowing that the individual who stabbed the victim did so…or, for that matter, that he even had a weapon.

The San Bernardino County juvenile court system has relatively few options for where to place minors who are deemed to need detention time. Most are ordered to spend time in the San Bernardino Central Juvenile Hall or the West Valley Juvenile Hall. Serious offenders get transferred to the California Youth Authority (CYA)—essentially a state-run prison for minors.

Los Angeles County, by contrast, operates a series of “camps” for young offenders that function as a middle ground between the halls and CYA. Minors get ordered to camp for 3 months to a year. Counseling, schooling, drug rehab and even career-training are provided. The purpose of the camps is entirely rehabilitative…to take the minor away from problems in the home and on the street, and try to instill in him or her purpose and responsibility.

Continue reading "San Bernardino Lacks a Camp System for Juvenile Offenders" »