Pettis v. Municipal Court

[1031]

Opinion

ELKINGTON, J.

Appellant Kenneth M. Pettis, 18 years old and charged with burglary, was proceeded against by way of preliminary examination in the municipal court He moved to have the case certified to the juvenile court under Welfare and Institutions Code section 604. This section as it applies to minors of ages 18 through 21 states: “(b) Whenever a case is pending in any court upon an accusatory pleading and it appears to the satisfaction of the judge that the person charged is under the age of 21 years, the judge

may

certify the case to the juvenile court of his county. . . (Italics added.)

The magistrate denied the motion after stating (as alleged by Kenneth— no transcript was made available to this court) that the accused “may very well be suited for treatment by the Juvenile Court, but that until the delays in processing referral cases were eliminated, it would no longer certify any case for consideration, regardless of the situation.”

Kenneth then sought to prevent further preliminary proceedings by “Petition for Writ of Prohibition/Mandamus” in the superior court. Upon reading and considering the petition that court by a written order summarily denied relief. It is from that order that the appeal is taken.

On his appeal Kenneth repeats the contentions of the points and authorities which accompanied his petition to the superior court. He recognizes that if held to answer for trial before the superior court he will have a right to move that court for certification to the juvenile court. But he insists that he has a

right

to twice move for such certification. He argues: “Because the law permits the motion for certification to be made at any time, it is clear that in a felony case such as petitioner’s, there is the potential for making a motion for certification to the Juvenile Court once before the Municipal Court and once again before the Superior Court. . . . When one of those courts imposes a blanket rule of exclusion, one of those two opportunities to have the motion considered is lost. The fact the motion might again be made is only a partial remedy because, by any standard, the possibility of a favorable ruling on the motion has been halved.”