Morris v. Dale S.

California Court of Appeal Aug 28, 1970 No. Civ. 1294Published

Before: Stone

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a juvenile court referee's order is conditional until the time for a rehearing has elapsed, and a rehearing de novo before a judge does not constitute double jeopardy because it is a continuation of the original proceeding.

Issues

Are Welfare and Institutions Code sections 553-560 unconstitutional for being vague and indefinite?
Does a rehearing de novo before a juvenile court judge following a referee's order constitute double jeopardy?
Did the trial judge abuse his discretion in committing the minor to the Youth Authority?

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“In short, we conclude that any order of a referee, approved or not, is conditional until the time for granting a rehearing pursuant to section 558 has elapsed. And where a rehearing is granted, as here, the referee’s order becomes a nullity”

“it follows that if the referee’s order does not become final, as in this case, because a rehearing is granted pursuant to section 558 or 559, the rehearing de novo does not place the minor in jeopardy a second time”

Opinion

STONE, P. J.

Appellant, a minor 18 years of age, was readjudged a ward of the juvenile court pursuant to a supplemental petition asserting that he came within the provisions of section 602 of Welfare and Institutions Code, in that he allegedly violated Vehicle Code section 10851 (taking a vehicle without the owner’s consent). A hearing was had before a duly appointed referee of the juvenile court of the County of Kern. The county probation officer recommended that appellant be committed to the California Youth Authority. The referee ordered that he remain in the custody of the probation department and that he be committed to Kern County’s Camp Owen. Since the order would deprive the parents of the custody of the minor, approval of the order by a judge of the juvenile court was obtained as required by Welfare and Institutions Code section 555.

Appellant’s parents applied for a rehearing, pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code

section

558. A rehearing de novo was had before a juvenile court judge, who set aside the order of the referee and committed the minor to California Youth Authority. This appeal is from the order of the juvenile court judge.

Appellant contends that Welfare and Institutions Code sections

[955]

553 through 560,- which provide for the appointment of a referee to act in the place and stead of a juvenile court judge and for a rehearing de novo on application of the minor, his parent or guardian, or by the court on its own motion, are unconstitutional. Appellant challenges the constitutionality of the code sections upon the general grounds they are vague and indefinite, and that to permit a rehearing de novo by a juvenile court judge, following an order in the same proceeding by a referee, constitutes double jeopardy. (U.S. Const., Amends. V, XIV; Cal. Const, art. I, § 13.)

Precisely these questions were at issue in the case of

In re Bradley,

258 Cal.App.2d 253 [65 Cal.Rptr. 570], wherein the court held these code sections offend neither the United States Constitution nor the California Constitution. However, appellant contends that

Morris v. Dale S.

AI Brief

STONE, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief