People v. Donald B.

California Court of Appeal Feb 27, 1979 No. Crim. 33009Published

Before: Stephens

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The juvenile court retains jurisdiction to sentence a defendant for juvenile offenses even after the defendant has been sentenced by the superior court for an adult crime, provided the juvenile court is not acting out of dissatisfaction with the superior court's sentence.

Issues

Does the superior court's assumption of jurisdiction over an adult crime terminate the juvenile court's jurisdiction over pending juvenile offenses?
May a juvenile court impose a commitment for juvenile offenses when the defendant has already been sentenced to the California Youth Authority for an adult crime?

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“we reject appellant’s argument that the juvenile court was without jurisdiction to sentence appellant and affirm.”

“the commission of an adult crime while juvenile offenses remain unsentenced serves to strip the juvenile court of jurisdiction to sentence for the juvenile offenses. We agree.”

Opinion

STEPHENS, Acting P. J.

Appellant Donald B. appeals from a commitment by the juvenile court, for offenses committed while he was a juvenile, imposed upon him after he was sentenced by the superior court for a crime committed by him as an adult. Both sentences imposed California Youth Authority confinement. He attacks the commitment imposed by the juvenile court on the basis that it lacked jurisdiction under

In re Dennis J.

(1977) 72 Cal.App.3d 755 [140 Cal.Rptr. 463].

[806]

We recently had the opportunity to address a similar issue in

In re Larry T

(1978) 77 Cal.App.3d 969 [144 Cal.Rptr. 43]. Because of the factual similarities between this case and

Dennis J.,

we reject appellant’s argument that the juvenile court was without jurisdiction to sentence appellant and affirm.

Donald has a long history of juvenile court contact. The four most recent petitions alleged that he came within the provisions of section 602 of the Welfare and Institutions Code for offenses committed from October 7, 1977, to December 5, 1977. One of the four petitions was dismissed as duplicative of the December 5th petition and one was dismissed in the interests of justice. Donald was found to be a person within the provisions of section 602

based solely on the petitions dated October 7, 1977 (sustained Nov. 7, 1977) and December 5, 1977 (sustained Jan. 20, 1978). Disposition was set for March 3, 1978. In the meantime, however, appellant was arrested, convicted by plea of guilty, and sentenced as an adult on February 24, 1978, for a crime committed after appellant had reached his 18th birthday (Nov. 14, 1977). He was sentenced to the California Youth Authority by the superior court judge. On March 3, Commissioner Robert Fletcher committed him to the California Youth Authority from juvenile court for a term not to exceed three years.

Since both the superior court and the juvenile court sentenced the appellant to the California Youth Authority, we have no possibility of the potential conflict disapproved in

People v. Donald B.

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief