People Ex Rel. Weber v. Fifield

DOOLING, J.

After a full hearing on a petition before the juvenile court of Alameda County the juvenile court judge found that the appellant, a minor, born December 3, 1938, comes within the provisions of section 700, subdivision (m), of the Juvenile Court Law in that she had committed the following offenses: violation of Vehicle Code, section 501, and of Penal Code, sections 484 and 499b. The court declared her a ward of the juvenile court and committed her to the Youth Authority.

On this appeal no contention is made, as on the record none could be made, that the evidence does not support the findings of the court. The sole contentions made are that the minor was denied the constitutional right to a jury trial and to be represented by counsel.

Our courts have held that proceedings before the juvenile court, even in cases where it is charged that the minor has committed a crime or crimes, are not criminal trials, but are in the nature of guardianship proceedings in which the state as

parens patriae

seeks to relieve the minor of the stigma of a criminal conviction and to give him corrective care, supervision and training to the end that he may become an honorable and useful citizen.

(In re Daedler,

194 Cal. 320 [228 P. 467] ;

In re Dargo,

81 Cal.App.2d 205 [183 P.2d 282].)

It is appellant’s position that because the basis of the peti

[743]

tion filed with the juvenile court was that she had violated certain provisions of the criminal law she was entitled to the constitutional rights to trial by jury and to be represented by counsel. The rationale of all of the decisions on the subject in this state is that because a proceeding before the juvenile court is not a criminal proceeding the constitutional and statutory rights given to persons charged with crime are not applicable to such proceedings. So it was held in

In re Daedler, supra,