## Facts

- A petition under Welfare and Institutions Code § 602 was filed alleging Armondo A., a minor, violated Vehicle Code § 10851 (unlawfully taking or driving a vehicle) as a felony.
- Police found Armondo in possession of a stolen car with a broken rear window and a punched ignition lock.
- Armondo told police he found the car in an alley, knew it was stolen, started it with fingernail clippers, and had been driving it for three or four days.
- Before the petition was filed, a probation officer conducted a prepetition screening under Welfare and Institutions Code § 654 and decided informal supervision was not appropriate.
- After the petition was filed, at Armondo’s request, the juvenile court referred the matter to probation for reconsideration of informal supervision.
- The juvenile court held hearings (on two dates) concerning Armondo’s request for informal supervision.
- During those hearings, the juvenile court stated it would “give the discretionary decision by the probation office a fair review,” and indicated it did not think it needed to hear testimony.
- The juvenile court denied informal supervision.
- The next day, Armondo admitted the petition allegation as a misdemeanor; the court declared him a ward of the court, set a maximum confinement period of one year, and placed him on formal probation in his parents’ custody.
- Armondo appealed, challenging the denial of informal supervision and the procedure used at the informal-supervision hearings.

## Issues

1. After a petition is filed, must the juvenile court make an independent discretionary determination whether informal supervision is appropriate, rather than limiting itself to reviewing the probation officer’s prepetition decision?
2. Did the court’s handling of the informal-supervision hearings deny the minor due process by restricting the proceeding and declining to take testimony?

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal held the juvenile court erred by treating the request as a review of the probation officer’s prepetition discretion instead of exercising the court’s own discretion regarding informal supervision.
- The matter was remanded for the juvenile court to make a new determination on informal supervision using the correct standard and considering relevant information.
- The court did not grant relief on a broad due process theory independent of the discretion error; the remedy was the remand for a proper discretionary decision.

## Legal Principles

- A probation officer’s prepetition discretion under Welfare and Institutions Code § 654 is separate from the juvenile court’s authority, once a petition is before the court, to decide whether informal supervision should be ordered (including under the court’s postpetition diversion authority).
- When the question of informal supervision is presented to the juvenile court, the court must make its own discretionary determination; it may not limit itself to deciding whether probation’s prepetition screening was “fair” or a “proper exercise” of probation’s discretion.
- A court commits reversible error when it fails to exercise discretion entrusted to it by law or acts on the mistaken view that it lacks discretion.
- The juvenile court’s discretionary decision on informal supervision should be made after allowing the parties a meaningful chance to present information relevant to that determination, rather than artificially confining the inquiry to the quality of the probation officer’s earlier investigation.

## Conclusion

Because the juvenile court denied informal supervision by deferring to probation’s prepetition screening instead of making its own discretionary determination, the Court of Appeal remanded for the juvenile court to reconsider informal supervision under the correct standard, with any resulting changes to the wardship/probation outcome depending on that renewed decision.


In re Armondo A., 3 Cal. App. 4th 1185 (1992)