People v. Anna S.

Opinion

FRANSON, J.

This appeal arises out of juvenile court proceedings in which appellant was found to have violated Vehicle Code section 10851 by driving an automobile without the owner’s consent. Appellant was 16 years old at the time of the juvenile court proceeding; however, she contends she should have been allowed to waive her rights to be treated as a juvenile to the end that she would obtain a jury trial in the criminal court. Although appellant does not contend that she was actually unfit for treatment as a juvenile, she urges this court to declare that a trial court is required to accept a waiver of juvenile court proceedings from a 16- or 17-year-old minor, so long as the minor is capable of making an intelligent waiver and is adequately informed of the consequences of such a waiver. Appellant seeks to strengthen her argument by asserting that the due process and equal protection clauses require the juvenile court to allow the minor to assert and be heard on the issue of fitness to be treated as a juvenile. For the reasons to be explained, we reject appellant’s contentions.

Discussion

Both the United States Supreme Court and the California Supreme Court have held there is no constitutional right to jury trial for juveniles accused of crime because juvenile court proceedings are not “criminal” proceedings

(McKeiver

v.

Pennsylvania

(1971) 403 U.S. 528 [29 L.Ed.2d 647, 91 S.Ct. 1976];

People

v.

Superior Court (Carl W.)

(1975) 15 Cal.3d 271, 274 [124 Cal.Rptr. 47, 539 P.2d 807]).

Welfare and Institutions Code section 707 provides in pertinent part: “In any case in which a minor is alleged to be a person described in Section 602 by reason of the violation, when he was 16 years of age or older, of any criminal statute or ordinance except those listed in subdivision (b),

upon motion of the petitioner

made prior to the attachment of jeopardy the court shall cause the probation officer to investigate and submit a report on the behavorial patterns and social