California Juvenile Court and Wobbler Offenses Quiz

California Supreme Court Rules on Juvenile Court's Discretion in Wobbler Offenses

• Some crimes in California, known as wobbler offenses, can be punished as either misdemeanors or felonies at the discretion of the sentencing court.

• Welfare and Institutions Code section 702 requires that when a minor is found to have committed a wobbler offense, "the court shall declare the offense to be a misdemeanor or a felony."

• The purpose of section 702 is to ensure that the juvenile court is aware of and exercises its discretion as to whether a juvenile's wobbler offense should be adjudicated as a misdemeanor or felony.

• A juvenile court's choice to classify a wobbler as a misdemeanor or felony can have significant implications for the juvenile's future.

• The failure to comply with section 702's express declaration mandate requires remand unless the record as a whole demonstrates that the juvenile court "was aware of, and exercised its discretion" as to wobblers.

• The case in question involves a minor, F.M., who admitted to committing assault with force likely to produce great bodily injury, active participation in a criminal street gang, and reckless evasion of a police officer, all wobbler offenses.

• The district attorney charged the assault and reckless evasion allegations as felonies and the street gang participation allegation as a misdemeanor, and the juvenile court accepted the admission of these allegations as such.

• The pretrial hearing transcript does not reveal any discussion of the juvenile court's discretion to treat the offenses as felonies or misdemeanors.

• The Court of Appeal concluded that the juvenile court failed to comply with section 702's express declaration requirement but declined to remand the matter to the juvenile court because the record established that the juvenile court "was both aware of and exercised its discretion to treat the sustained allegations as felonies."

• The Supreme Court holds that a section 702 error requires remand unless the record as a whole demonstrates that the juvenile court "was aware of, and exercised its discretion" as to wobblers.

• The Legislature viewed section 702's express declaration requirement as a guarantee that the court understood and exercised its discretion as to wobbler offenses with the purposes of the statutory scheme in mind.

• The failure to comply with section 702 in F.M.'s case cannot be regarded as harmless error, and F.M. has not forfeited his right to challenge the juvenile court's failure to comply with section 702.California Supreme Court rules on forfeiture of section 702 error claims in juvenile court

• Failure to comply with section 702's express declaration requirement in juvenile court is an error.

• In Manzy W. case, the juvenile court did not have knowledge of its discretion in the matter.

• The case was remanded for compliance with section 702's express declaration requirement.

• Claims of section 702 error are not necessarily forfeited when not raised in juvenile court.

• G.C. case held that the alleged section 702 error went to the manner in which the sentence was entered, not to the lawfulness of imposing it.

• The phrase "forfeitable legal error" in G.C. refers to a defendant who fails to file a timely appeal of a dispositional order.

• Section 702 requires the juvenile court to declare its choice whether to treat an alleged wobbler as a misdemeanor or as a felony on the record at a hearing.

• The juvenile court's failure to make this declaration as to each of the wobbler offenses alleged in Petitions B and C was an error.

• The standard announced in Manzy W. requires a remand unless the record as a whole establishes that the juvenile court "was aware of, and exercised its discretion to determine the felony or misdemeanor nature of a wobbler."

• Applying Watson to assess the likelihood of a more favorable result does not address the risk of courts misapprehending the extent of their lawful authority in this particular context.

• Remand is appropriate when no discretionary decision was made in the first place.

• The judgment of the Court of Appeal is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings.

California Supreme Court Rules on Juvenile Court's Discretion in Wobbler Offenses

• Some crimes in California, known as wobbler offenses, can be punished as either misdemeanors or felonies at the discretion of the sentencing court.

• Welfare and Institutions Code section 702 requires that when a minor is found to have committed a wobbler offense, "the court shall declare the offense to be a misdemeanor or a felony."

• The purpose of section 702 is to ensure that the juvenile court is aware of and exercises its discretion as to whether a juvenile's wobbler offense should be adjudicated as a misdemeanor or felony.

• A juvenile court's choice to classify a wobbler as a misdemeanor or felony can have significant implications for the juvenile's future.

• The failure to comply with section 702's express declaration mandate requires remand unless the record as a whole demonstrates that the juvenile court "was aware of, and exercised its discretion" as to wobblers.

• The case in question involves a minor, F.M., who admitted to committing assault with force likely to produce great bodily injury, active participation in a criminal street gang, and reckless evasion of a police officer, all wobbler offenses.

• The district attorney charged the assault and reckless evasion allegations as felonies and the street gang participation allegation as a misdemeanor, and the juvenile court accepted the admission of these allegations as such.

• The pretrial hearing transcript does not reveal any discussion of the juvenile court's discretion to treat the offenses as felonies or misdemeanors.

• The Court of Appeal concluded that the juvenile court failed to comply with section 702's express declaration requirement but declined to remand the matter to the juvenile court because the record established that the juvenile court "was both aware of and exercised its discretion to treat the sustained allegations as felonies."

• The Supreme Court holds that a section 702 error requires remand unless the record as a whole demonstrates that the juvenile court "was aware of, and exercised its discretion" as to wobblers.

• The Legislature viewed section 702's express declaration requirement as a guarantee that the court understood and exercised its discretion as to wobbler offenses with the purposes of the statutory scheme in mind.

• The failure to comply with section 702 in F.M.'s case cannot be regarded as harmless error, and F.M. has not forfeited his right to challenge the juvenile court's failure to comply with section 702.California Supreme Court rules on forfeiture of section 702 error claims in juvenile court

• Failure to comply with section 702's express declaration requirement in juvenile court is an error.

• In Manzy W. case, the juvenile court did not have knowledge of its discretion in the matter.

• The case was remanded for compliance with section 702's express declaration requirement.

• Claims of section 702 error are not necessarily forfeited when not raised in juvenile court.

• G.C. case held that the alleged section 702 error went to the manner in which the sentence was entered, not to the lawfulness of imposing it.

• The phrase "forfeitable legal error" in G.C. refers to a defendant who fails to file a timely appeal of a dispositional order.

• Section 702 requires the juvenile court to declare its choice whether to treat an alleged wobbler as a misdemeanor or as a felony on the record at a hearing.

• The juvenile court's failure to make this declaration as to each of the wobbler offenses alleged in Petitions B and C was an error.

• The standard announced in Manzy W. requires a remand unless the record as a whole establishes that the juvenile court "was aware of, and exercised its discretion to determine the felony or misdemeanor nature of a wobbler."

• Applying Watson to assess the likelihood of a more favorable result does not address the risk of courts misapprehending the extent of their lawful authority in this particular context.

• Remand is appropriate when no discretionary decision was made in the first place.

• The judgment of the Court of Appeal is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings.