Minors May Not Plead in Delinquency Matters Without Their Attorney’s Consent

A recent decision by the California Supreme Court centers on whether a minor facing the prospect of agreeing to a plea bargain in a juvenile case may do so without their lawyer’s consent.

The court held that a child does not have an absolute right to accept a plea offer over the objections of an attorney appointed to protect the child’s interests.

The court’s ruling is grounded in the legislative history behind Welfare & Institutions Code governing juvenile delinquency hearings as well as in the California Rules of the Court.

The court confined its decision to a counsel-consent requirement in a juvenile plea of no contest, expressing no opinion concerning how attorneys should exercise the authority to give or withhold that consent.

People v. Alonzo J. (Case No. S206720, California Supreme Court, April 3, 2014)

The issue in this case is whether a 13-year-old child being detained in juvenile detention on multiple charges may plead “no contest” against the advice of his lawyer.

In February 2010, the Sacramento Police Department arrested then 12-year-old Alonzo J. for allegedly stabbing his own mother with a steak knife after she refused to buy him a bicycle.

He was charged with one count of felony assault with a deadly weapon (Penal Code Section 245 (a)(1)). Upon his admission, the court deemed the offense a misdemeanor. He was declared a ward of the court, placed on probation as well as 30 days of electronic monitoring and returned to his mother’s custody.

Another altercation ensued on Nov. 1, 2010. Allegedly, he swung a skateboard at his mother and missed. When she tried to hold him down, he allegedly hit her in the face with a portable electric heater. Police arrested him and detained him in juvenile hall. This time, Alonzo faced delinquency proceedings involving two felony counts of assault with a deadly weapon and one count of misdemeanor vandalism (Penal Code Section 594 (b)(2)(A)).

Whether he assaulted his mother was disputed. Alonzo claimed he never hit her and the mother unsuccessfully tried to get the charges dismissed.

The prosecutor offered Alonzo a choice: admit to one of the felony assault counts and be allowed to go home subject to electronically-monitored probation or have the felony charges dismissed and admit to misdemeanor vandalism on the condition that he accept placement in a group or foster home.

The child insisted on pleading to the felony and going home. His public defender refused to consent and advised him to take the misdemeanor offer instead.

How Did this Case Get to the California Supreme Court?

The juvenile court would not accept Alonzo’s plea without his attorney’s consent. Eventually, the court found him delinquent on all charges and directed him to be placed in a foster or group home, rehabilitation, or placed with a friend or relative.

He appealed. The appellate court reversed, holding that the lawyer’s consent was required for a guilty plea but not for a no contest plea. The California Supreme Court granted review.

What Did the California Supreme Court Rule?

This case turns on interpretation of the California Rules of Court regarding a juvenile delinquency proceeding. Rule 5.778 provides in subdivision (d): “Counsel for the child must consent to the admission, which must be made by the child personally.” However, subdivision (e) of the rule says: “The child may enter a plea of no contest to the allegations, subject to the approval of the court” (CRC 5.778 (e)).

Does this mean a child must have his attorney’s consent to make a guilty plea in a juvenile delinquency case but does not need consent to plead “no contest”? No, said the justices.

The court determined that in a delinquency proceeding, there is no basis to conclude that the legal effect of a no contest plea differs in any way from that of an admission.

An adult who pleads no contest in a criminal case may be able to avoid civil liability upon his or her conviction, but a child cannot be convicted in juvenile court, nor can a child be sued. Thus, whether the child admits to the charges or pleads no contest doesn’t change the outcome. He or she still faces a disposition hearing – the juvenile equivalent of “sentencing.”

The justices found that the intent for attorney consent in juvenile delinquency proceedings is to protect the rights of the accused child. The court stated: “Because a no contest plea and an admission have the same effect in juvenile delinquency proceedings…allowing the child to circumvent the counsel-consent requirement by entering a no contest plea rather than an admission would be inconsistent with that legislative intent.”

The court reversed the decision of the appellate court, holding that Rule 5.778 requires consent of the child’s counsel for a no contest plea, just as for admission to the charges in a delinquency petition.

Was this Decision Fair?

If you are 13-year-old Alonzo, this decision probably doesn’t seem fair at all. He didn’t care about pleading to felony assault under Penal Code Section 245 (a)(1) – a strike under California’s Three Strike’s law. He didn’t care about wearing an ankle monitor. He was desperate to get out of juvenile detention. He just wanted to go home.

However, his public defender was right not to consent. The deal was bad for Alonzo in the long run and she was looking out for her client’s best interests.

The court correctly interpreted an otherwise ambiguous rule. As far as minors are concerned, there is no difference between an admission and a plea of no contest. The decision is thus fair and correct.

What Does this Decision Mean to You?

This decision wasn’t about whether the constitutional rights of the minor were infringed. In fact, the California Supreme Court protected a minor’s rights by doing what the legislature had intended. The justices did Alonzo J. and any other minor about to make a poor lifelong decision a favor.

If you are a minor facing a juvenile delinquency case, you need to follow your attorney’s advice. You aren’t going to be able to resolve your case without his or her consent and an experienced juvenile delinquency attorney knows best how to avoid the most serious consequences of a juvenile adjudication.

Contact Wallin & Klarich Today if Your Child is Accused of Committing a Crime

If your child is facing criminal charges, it is important that you speak to an experienced juvenile defense attorney at Wallin & Klarich today. Our attorneys at Wallin & Klarich have over 40 years of experience successfully defending our minor clients.

We understand this can be a stressful time for your family. Rest assured, you don’t have to go through this alone.

With offices conveniently located in Los Angeles, Sherman Oaks, Torrance, Tustin, San Diego, Riverside, San Bernardino, Ventura, West Covina and Victorville, our experienced attorneys at Wallin & Klarich are close by to make certain your child’s rights are protected throughout every step in a juvenile matter. We are dedicated to helping you and your family get the best result possible outcome in your child’s case.

Call us today at (877) 4-NO-JAIL or (877) 466-5245 for a free telephone consultation. We will get through this together.