Davis v. Michael M.

California Court of Appeal Sep 18, 1970 No. Civ. 27389Published

Before: Elkington

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the constitutional requirements established in Boykin v. Alabama, which mandate an affirmative, on-the-record waiver of the rights to confrontation and against self-incrimination before accepting a guilty plea, apply to juvenile court proceedings where a minor faces potential institutional detention. Because the minor did not affirmatively waive these rights, the commitment order was reversed.

Issues

Whether the rule of Boykin v. Alabama applies to juvenile court proceedings where a minor faces institutional detention.
Whether a minor's admission to allegations in a juvenile petition requires an affirmative, on-the-record waiver of constitutional rights.

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The strictures of Boykin reasonably, and under the compulsion of Kent v. United States, supra, In re Gault, supra, and In re Winship, supra, are equally applicable to juvenile court proceedings where the minor is liable to a substantial term of institutional detention.”

“Michael, in what was equivalent to a plea of guilty resulting in his commitment to a state institution, did not affirmatively waive his constitutional rights to confrontation and against self-incrimination.”

Opinion

ELKINGTON, J.

A petition filed with the Contra Costa County Juvenile Court under the provisions of article 7, sections 650-664, Welfare and

[743]

Institutions Code, alleged that Michael M., a minor, aged 17, “did sell a restricted dangerous drug, to wit: a hallucinogen known as lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) . . . thereby violating section 11912 of the Health and Safety Code of California” and that he therefore came “within the provisions of section 602 of the Juvenile Court Law [Welf. & Inst. Code].”

The juvenile court thereafter found the allegations of the petition to be true and committed Michael to the California Youth Authority. The proceedings on which the finding and commitment were based were the following: “The Court: The reason for this hearing this morning is that a petition was filed in the Juvenile Court, stating that Michael comes within Section 602 of the Juvenile Court Law, in that on or about May 7, 1969, he did sell a restricted dangerous drug, LSD, without a written prescription, thereby violating Section 11912 of the Health and Safety Code. Counsel, does your client admit or deny that? [Counsel] : My client admits that, Your Honor. The Court: Michael, is that true? The Minor: Yes.”; also, Michael made certain admissions immediately thereafter in open court in the presence of, and without objection by, his attorney, as to the details of his offense.

On his appeal Michael contends that the foregoing proceedings were tantamount to a plea of guilty; that he did not knowingly and intelligently waive his constitutional rights of confrontation and against self-incrimination; and that the rule of

Boykin

Alabama,

395 U.S. 238 [23 L.Ed.2d 274, 89 S.Ct. 1709], requiring a recorded showing of waiver of such rights on a plea of guilty to a criminal charge, is applicable to his case.

There can be little doubt that Michael’s admissions to the court were, in their practical effect, equivalent to a plea of guilty to a charge of felonious possession of a restricted dangerous drug. As a result he could be, and was, committed to a state institution, the California Youth Authority, where he may be confined until age 21 (see Welf. & Inst. Code, § 1769), and, under some conditions, even longer (see Welf. & Inst. Code, § 1800).

Davis v. Michael M.

AI Brief

ELKINGTON, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief