## Facts

- Jimmy P., a minor under juvenile court jurisdiction, was adjudged a ward of the court after admitting petty theft and was initially placed with his mother under “Families First.”
- After a later robbery adjudication, he was placed in a nine-month “Boys Ranch” program, where he repeatedly failed to follow staff directions and program rules.
- After additional efforts at less restrictive placement, the court placed Jimmy at St. John’s School for Boys.
- The state filed a fifth supplemental petition under Welfare and Institutions Code § 777 alleging the prior disposition was ineffective after St. John’s terminated Jimmy as “beyond control,” citing fighting, rule violations, truancy, inciting truancy, and attempted incitement of gang activity.
- Under an agreement, Jimmy admitted only that he was AWOL/truant; the remaining allegations were stricken.
- At the contested disposition hearing, the juvenile court received a probation report incorporating St. John’s expulsion report describing the broader conduct, and the court relied on that material in committing Jimmy to the Youth Authority.
- Jimmy appealed, arguing the juvenile court was barred from considering conduct underlying stricken allegations under People v. Harvey.

## Issues

1. Whether the People v. Harvey rule, limiting reliance on facts underlying dismissed charges in adult sentencing, applies to juvenile placement decisions under a § 777 proceeding.
2. Whether a juvenile court may consider reliable reports describing conduct tied to allegations stricken as part of an admission agreement when selecting an appropriate placement.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the dispositional order.
- People v. Harvey was held inapplicable to juvenile placement determinations.
- The juvenile court could consider all available reliable social and behavioral evidence, including conduct described in reports even if related to stricken allegations.

## Legal Principles

- Juvenile placement decisions are guided by a statutory scheme focused on the minor’s welfare and rehabilitation, and permit consideration of broad, reliable social and behavioral information.
- The Harvey limitation on using facts underlying dismissed charges in adult criminal sentencing does not restrict a juvenile court’s dispositional placement analysis.
- In juvenile proceedings, a minor generally has no reasonable expectation that conduct underlying dismissed or stricken allegations will be ignored in determining the appropriate placement, so long as the information considered is reliable.

## Conclusion

The court upheld a juvenile commitment where the dispositional judge relied on probation and placement reports describing the minor’s broader conduct, holding that the Harvey rule does not bar consideration of reliable conduct underlying allegations stricken in a § 777 matter when the court selects the proper juvenile placement.


In re Jimmy P., 58 Cal. Rptr. 2d 632 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996)