This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.


Modification: In re Jason V.

Ruling by

Cindee F. Mayfield

Lower Court

Contra Costa County Superior Court

Lower Court Judge

John W. Kennedy Jr.
Nunc pro tunc order correcting the period of confinement imposed was permissible because the juvenile court was merely effectuating its discretionary decision and not retroactively altering it.



Court

California Courts of Appeal 1DCA/2

Cite as

2022 DJDAR 9019

Published

Aug. 24, 2022

Filing Date

Aug. 23, 2022

Opinion Type

Modification

Disposition Type

Affirmed

Case Fully Briefed

May 3, 2022

Oral Argument

Jul. 20, 2022


In re JASON V., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

 

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

JASON V.,

Defendant and Appellant.

 

No. A163366

(Contra Costa County

Super. Ct. No. J17-00992)

California Court of Appeal

First Appellate District

Division Two

Filed August 23, 2022

 

ORDER MODIFYING OPINION

AND DENYING REHEARING

NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT

 

 

BY THE COURT:

 

It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on July 28, 2022, be modified as follows:

1. On page 12, delete last sentence of first full paragraph, beginning with "It is Jason who is attempting to use . . . ," and replace it with the following sentence:

Failing to give effect to the nunc pro tunc order would result in a fortuitously timed, inadvertent error on a non-discretionary point requiring the court to order a disposition it specifically chose not

to order when it exercised its discretion to commit Jason to DJJ.

Footnote 12 at the end of the sentence remains the same.

2. On page 14, delete the following portion of the last two sentences of the first full paragraph:

---which Jason calls a "dispositional hearing" because he views the nunc pro tunc order as invalid, but the juvenile court and Attorney General view as a section 737 review hearing. Jason

further contends he is entitled

Replace the deleted portion with the word "and." The sentence should read:

He contends he is entitled to these additional credits for days in custody prior to the July 12 hearing and to credit for the time he spent in juvenile hall following July 12 until he was transferred

to DJJ on November 23, 2021.

This modification does not effect a change in the judgment.

Appellant's petition for rehearing is denied.

 

 

Dated: ________________ _________________________

Stewart, Acting P.J.

 

 

Trial Court: Contra Costa County Superior Court

 

Trial Judge: Hon. John W. Kennedy

 

 

Attorney for Appellant:

By Appointment of the Court of Appeal

First District Appellate Project

Amanda K. Roze

 

Attorneys for Respondent:

Rob Bonta

Attorney General of California

 

Lance E. Winters

Chief Assistant Attorney General

 

Jeffrey M. Laurence

Senior Assistant Attorney General

 

René A. Chacón

Supervising Deputy Attorney General

 

Viktoriya Chebotarev

Deputy Attorney General

 

Nanette Winaker

Deputy Attorney General

#279884

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390