In Re Drexel F.

California Court of Appeal May 28, 1976 No. 2678Published

Before: Franson

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a juvenile court referee's failure to provide the minor with a written explanation of the right to seek review of the referee's order, as required by Welfare and Institutions Code section 554, necessitates reversal of the judgment.

Issues

Whether the statutory scheme denying a minor the right to a court reporter at hearings before a juvenile court referee violates due process and equal protection.
Whether the notice provisions of Welfare and Institutions Code section 554 are mandatory.
Whether the failure to provide the required written notice of the right to seek review precludes a finding that the minor waived the right to a rehearing.

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“We construe the notice provisions of section 554 as mandatory.”

“The record in the present case does not show that appellant, his attorney, or his parents were furnished a written explanation of appellant's right to seek review of the jurisdictional and dispositional orders of the referee.”

58 Cal.App.3d 801 (1976) 130 Cal. Rptr. 253 In re DREXEL F., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Law.

JAMES ROWLAND, as Chief Probation Officer, etc., Plaintiff and Respondent,

DREXEL F., Defendant and Appellant.

Docket No. 2678. Court of Appeals of California, Fifth District.

May 28, 1976. [802] COUNSEL

Benjamin R. Winslow, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Evelle J. Younger, Attorney General, Jack R. Winkler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Arnold O. Overoye, Assistant Attorney General, Joel Carey and Robert D. Marshall, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

OPINION

FRANSON, J.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

A petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 was filed in the juvenile court on May 15, 1975, alleging that appellant, age 17, had committed a battery and felonious assault on the persons of others.

At the jurisdictional hearing the referee found that appellant had committed an assault with force likely to produce great bodily injury in [803] violation of Penal Code section 245, subdivision (a), and that appellant was a person described in Welfare and Institutions Code section 602.

The report and recommendation of the probation officer recommended a Youth Authority commitment.

At the dispositional hearing, the referee found that appellant previously had been tried on probation and had failed to reform, and ordered appellant committed to the Youth Authority. Appellant was formally committed to the Youth Authority by a judge of the juvenile court.

In Re Drexel F.

AI Brief

OPINION

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

DISCUSSION

NOTES

AI Brief