Loading…
Defense counsel for a youthful offender parole–eligible defendant, or for an eligible inmate serving a sentence for a Santa Clara County conviction, may inspect, copy and use documents from the client's juvenile case file to prepare a Franklin mitigation packet without separately filing a Welfare and Institutions Code section 827 petition; counsel must redact identifying information of victims, siblings and co-participants who were under 18, may share the redacted documents with participating experts (who return them), must destroy the documents after the hearing, and may use the information for no other purpose.
California > Sixth Appellate District > Santa Clara County > Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara > Juvenile Division
[File stamp: FILED, APR 21 2021, Clerk of the Court, Superior Court of CA County of Santa Clara, By: [signature], Deputy, T. Pierce] SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA SANTA CLARA COUNTY JUVENILE COURT DIVISION DEFENSE COUNSEL ACCESS TO JUVENILE CASE FILE FOR YOUTHFUL OFFENDER PAROLE ("YOP") HEARINGS (RIGHT TO INSPECT, COPY, AND USE WITHOUT SEPARATELY FILING AN §827 MOTION) Background: Certain inmates serving lengthy state prison commitments are eligible for a Youthful Offender Parole ("YOP") Hearing. Senate Bill 260 granted this right to inmates who committed their eligible offenses when they were under the age of 18. Effective 1/1/2016, Senate Bill 261 expanded these special hearings to prisoners who were under the age of 23 when they committed the offenses for which they currently are serving time. In October 2017, Assembly Bill 1308 extended the youthful offender parole eligibility to those under age 26. Penal Code §3051 allows people who were 16 or 17 years old at the time of a crime for which they were sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole ("LWOP") to be eligible for a YOP hearing in their 25th year of incarceration. It is estimated that more than 10,000 prisoners are eligible for YOP hearings. The law governing Youthful Offender Parole eligibility is set forth in Penal Code §3051 and §3051.1. At a YOP hearing, the Parole Board must consider youthful factors because young people are considered less culpable than adults for their actions based on their lack of development, potential for rehabilitation and increased maturity over time. In People v. Franklin (2016) 63 Cal. 4th 261, the court held that SB 260 ensures a meaningful opportunity for relief for youth offenders only if the information regarding the offender's characteristics and circumstances at the time of the offense will be available at the parole hearing. The right to have a mitigation packet prepared pursuant to Franklin is applicable to youthful offender eligible defendants with pending cases in Superior Court and to youthful offender parole eligible inmates currently incarcerated in the California Department of Corrections (CDCR) for convictions arising out of Santa Clara County. Since 2014, reasonable professional standards require defense counsel representing youthful parole eligible clients to utilize experts, compile relevant records, conduct necessary investigation and prepare mitigation packets that document the client’s diminished capacity and factors of youth for consideration at the YOP hearing. Many YOP eligible defendants and inmates have a juvenile case file. The “juvenile case file” is defined in Rule 5.552 of the California Rules of Court to include: (1) all documents filed in a juvenile court case; (2) reports to the court by probation officers, social workers of child welfare services programs, and CASA volunteers; (3) documents made available to probation officers, social workers of child welfare services programs, and CASA volunteers in preparation of reports to the court; (4) documents relating to a child concerning whom a petition has been filed in juvenile court that are maintained in the office files of probation officers, social workers of child welfare services programs, and CASA volunteers; (5) transcripts, records, or reports relating to matters prepared or released by the court, probation department, or child welfare services program; and (6) documents, video or audio tapes, photographs, and exhibits admitted into evidence at juvenile court hearings. Presently, defense counsel is required to file a petition pursuant to Welfare & Institutions Code §827 with the Presiding Judge of the Juvenile Justice Court and obtain court approval prior to using such records for mitigation purposes. The filing and processing of each petition for disclosure is time consuming and an undue encumbrance on the resources of the Court. Additionally, the filing and processing of each petition will likely result in lengthy delays, thereby affecting the ability of defense counsel to provide a thorough and timely mitigation hearing and/or packet. Based upon these changes in the law, the Court makes the following order: Therefore, defense counsel (or their designated representative) who represents a youthful offender eligible defendant or a youthful offender eligible inmate serving a sentence for a conviction out of Santa Clara County has the right to inspect, copy, and use documents and information from their client’s “juvenile case file” to prepare a mitigation packet pursuant to Franklin for consideration at their youthful offender parole hearing without separately filing a petition for disclosure under WIC §827. Defense counsel will redact the names, addresses, phone numbers, social security numbers, or any other identifying information of any victim(s) and siblings, and co-participants who were under the age of 18 at the time of the juvenile proceedings contained in any documents that counsel intends to include in the mitigation packet and that came from the “juvenile case file.” This does not waive the confidentiality of any other participant to the events in question. Defense counsel are permitted to share the redacted documents with experts who are participating in the preparation of the mitigation packet. Experts who use the documents shall return the documents to defense counsel in a timely manner. Defense counsel shall destroy the documents after they are used for the Youthful Offender Parole Hearing. Information obtained as a result of this order shall not be used for any other purpose. Except as otherwise provided herein, the documents shall not be published, disseminated, copied, or placed on the Internet. SO ORDERED: [signature] Judge Katherine Lucero Presiding Judge of the Juvenile Court Division Dated: 4/21/2021
[File stamp: FILED, APR 21 2021, Clerk of the Court, Superior Court of CA County of Santa Clara, By: [signature], Deputy, T. Pierce] SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA SANTA CLARA COUNTY JUVENILE COURT DIVISION DEFENSE COUNSEL ACCESS TO JUVENILE CASE FILE FOR YOUTHFUL OFFENDER PAROLE ("YOP") HEARINGS (RIGHT TO INSPECT, COPY, AND USE WITHOUT SEPARATELY FILING AN §827 MOTION) Background: Certain inmates s
Reviewer note: Composed 2026-09-28 (California T3 Santa Clara build 2026-09-28) from BenchPath custody ca/t3/ca-santa-clara/juv/537djuv_justice.pdf (375125 bytes, sha256 84dafdb3776da23a02302113cae7dfac3d9ef1290934717230176f5752edeef3; 3 pages) - the court's own posted PDF, a scan: transcribed from the rendered page images, every page read against the image; a machine reading (RapidOCR) was used only as a second reader for a word-level diff, every difference classified (misreadings, the file stamp and caption overprints, pleading line numbers, page numbers and running footers omitted as chrome), and each line the machine reader skipped was re-read in a full-resolution crop; every quotation mark, apostrophe, dash and section sign checked in full-resolution crops; the file stamp and the signatures are bracketed. Local Juvenile Rule 1(K)(5) (rules effective July 1, 2026) restates the order's core — access without a section 827 petition and the redaction duty; the terms on sharing with experts, their return of the documents, destruction after the hearing and no other use appear only in this order. The clerk's legend of the file stamp is impressed twice and is transcribed once. The order mixes straight and curly quotation marks and apostrophes; each is transcribed as printed. Printed irregularities are kept as printed.
Standing order of the 109th Judicial District Court for every pending or later-filed case in Andrews, Winkler and Crane Counties: any attorney or self-represented litigant who uses any form of artificial intelligence for legal research or drafting in a case must, before using AI-generated information in a court submission or proceeding, sign and submit the court's certification form stating that all language, quotations, sources, citations, arguments and legal analysis created or contributed to by generative AI were verified as accurate by a human through traditional (non-AI) legal sources, and acknowledging responsibility and potential sanctions for their or their co-counsel's failure to comply. Effective immediately; in effect until rescinded or replaced.
Standing order of the 109th Judicial District Court for every pending or later-filed case in Andrews, Winkler and Crane Counties: any attorney or self-represented litigant who uses any form of artificial intelligence for legal research or drafting in a case must, before using AI-generated information in a court submission or proceeding, sign and submit the court's certification form stating that all language, quotations, sources, citations, arguments and legal analysis created or contributed to by generative AI were verified as accurate by a human through traditional (non-AI) legal sources, and acknowledging responsibility and potential sanctions for their or their co-counsel's failure to comply. Effective immediately; in effect until rescinded or replaced.