In Re Larry T.

California Court of Appeal Feb 24, 1978 No. Crim. 31466Published

Before: Kaus

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that concurrent jurisdiction between the Youth Authority and the superior court is permissible when the circumstances do not present the specific conflicts identified in In re Dennis J.

Issues

Whether the rule in In re Dennis J. prohibits concurrent jurisdiction between the Youth Authority and the superior court in all cases.
Whether the juvenile court's commitment of the petitioner to the Youth Authority was invalid due to the petitioner's concurrent adult probation.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“We do not, however, read Dennis J. as broadly as petitioner.”

“Dennis J. is therefore, clearly distinguishable.”

“We emphasize, however, that the only question before us is Youth Authority jurisdiction.”

Opinion

KAUS, P. J.

Petitioner seeks immediate release from the jurisdiction of the California Youth Authority.

These are the undisputed facts: Petitioner was bom on March 4, 1959 and therefore reached his 18th birthday on March 4, 1977. He was adjudged a ward of the juvenile court on December 17, 1975, and has continued in that status until the present time. On March 11, 1977 a juvenile court petition was filed, alleging that he came within the provisions of section 602 of the Welfare and Institutions Code for an offense committed on January 17, 1977. One count of that petition was found to be true on August 3, 1977. The matter was continued to August 17, 1977, for disposition.

[971]

Meanwhile, in June 1977, petitioner was charged by information with having

committed

a burglaiy on April 30, 1977—about two months after he reached his majority. On August 15, 1977, he pleaded guilty to second degree burglary, after being advised that if the juvenile court committed him to the Youth Authority, any time he might have to serve in connection with the burglary conviction could be served at a Youth Authority

facility.

Following his plea, he was granted probation for three years on various conditions, one of which was that he spend six months in the county jail, with credit for time served, the court specifying that the jail term could be served in a Youth Authority facility. On August 17, 1977 the juvenile court committed him to the Youth Authority, which then detained him at the Mount Bullion Youth Conservation Camp.

On September 21, 1977, he petitioned the juvenile court for an order terminating Youth Authority jurisdiction, which order was denied on October 13, 1977. Petitioner claims that

In re Dennis J.

(1977) 72 Cal.App.3d 755 [140 Cal.Rptr. 463], compels such termination. We disagree. We emphasize, however, that the only question before us is Youth Authority jurisdiction. Thus, we are not concerned with possible issues relating to the propriety of continued adult probation. (See fn. 2,

In Re Larry T.

AI Brief

KAUS, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief