In re E.G.

In re E.G., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

E.G.,

Defendant and Appellant.

No. A146287

(Contra Costa County

Super. Ct. No. J13-00091)

ORDER MODIFYING OPINION AND DENYING REHEARING

[NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT]

California Court of Appeals

First Appellate District

Division Five

Filed January 13, 2017

Hon. John Minney, Judge.

James S. Donnelly, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Jeffrey M. Laurence, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Donna M. Provenzano and Christina Vom Saal, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

THE COURT:

It is ordered that the opinion filed December 14, 2016 be modified as follows:

(1) Insert the following footnote on page 13 at the conclusion of the first full paragraph: ?In a petition for rehearing, the People argue section 17(b)(3) is manifestly at odds with the principles of juvenile law because there is no provision in juvenile court law for suspending the imposition of sentence.  As we have explained, the relevant inquiry is not whether the criminal statute?s procedure is present in juvenile court law, but rather whether the statute?s ?internal references to adult criminal procedures indicate a purpose manifestly inconsistent with juvenile application.?  (Jovan B., supra, 6 Cal.4th at p. 813, italics added.)  The petition identifies no reason our analysis on this question is incorrect.  The People next argue even if section 17(b)(3) does apply in juvenile proceedings, it does not apply to appellant because he was not granted probation without the imposition of sentence or any other stayed or suspended disposition.  However, the appropriate analysis looks to the ?functional equivalent? of the adult criminal procedure in juvenile court law.  (Jovan B., at p. 815.)  The petition does not address our analysis concluding appellant?s disposition was the functional equivalent of a grant of probation without imposition of sentence.  Finally, the People argue appellant had other remedies to mitigate the impact of his felony adjudication.  Assuming these remedies are equivalent to a reduction under section 17(b)(3), the People fail to explain how their availability impacts our statutory interpretation analysis of the application of section 17(b)(3) in juvenile proceedings.?

There is no change in the judgment.

The People?s petition for rehearing is denied.

Dated: ____________________,                    ____________________, P.J.