In Re Steven R.

Opinion

SMITH, J.

This is an appeal from a dispositional order of the juvenile court after it was determined that appellant came within Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 by reason of his having committed drunk driving (Veh. Code, § 23102, subd. (a)).

The principal issue in this case is whether the Humboldt County District Attorney’s policy of refusing to plea bargain drunk driving charges

[97]

down to reckless driving (Veh. Code, § 23103) in cases involving minors constitutes purposeful arid invidious discrimination in violation of such minors’ right to equal protection under the federal and state Constitutions.

At approximately 3 a.m. on August 25, 1979, appellant was driving his motorcycle in the vicinity of 14th and Main Streets in Fortuna when a police officer observed him make a turn which was too wide and' weave as he drove. The officer stopped appellant, conducted a series of field sobriety tests which showed that appellant was under the influence of alcohol and subsequently arrested him. It is undisputed that a properly administered “Intoxilizer” test indicated that appellant’s blood alcohol level on the morning in question was .13 percent.

On September 14, 1979, the District Attorney of Humboldt County filed a petition in juvenile court alleging that appellant came within the provisions of Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 in that he was under 18 years of age and had committed drunk driving (Veh. Code, § 23102, subd. (a)). The public defender was subsequently appointed to represent appellant, and, on October 17, 1979, appellant entered a denial to the charge contained in the petition.

On November 13, 1979, appellant filed a motion to dismiss the petition on constitutional grounds, alleging that in Humboldt County adults who face their first drunk driving charge and who have a blood alcohol level of under .15 percent are usually offered an opportunity to plead guilty to reckless driving (Veh. Code, § 23103) whereas minors in a similar situation who are prosecuted in juvenile court are denied the same opportunity. Appellant alleged that the practice discriminated between juveniles and adults and violated his right to equal protection of the law as guaranteed by the United States and California Constitutions. On April 1, 1980, the court denied the motion on the ground that no policy of discriminatory treatment of minors existed.