In Re JLP

California Court of Appeal Apr 24, 1972 No. 30385Published

Before: Brown (h.C.)

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The juvenile court erred by predetermining the minor's disposition before the jurisdictional hearing and by refusing to hear relevant evidence regarding the appropriate disposition as required by the Welfare and Institutions Code.

Issues

Whether the juvenile court erred in predetermining the disposition of a minor prior to the jurisdictional and dispositional hearings.
Whether the juvenile court erred in refusing to hear relevant evidence regarding the disposition of the minor.

Disposition. reversed and remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The court, however, by its predetermination of disposition and its refusal to hear the offered evidence, was in error.”

“We have concluded that the judgment and order of commitment to the Youth Authority be reversed and that the matter be remanded to the superior court sitting as the juvenile court to consider evidence as to the appropriate disposition of appellant.”

25 Cal.App.3d 86 (1972) 100 Cal. Rptr. 601 In re J.L.P., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

ROBERT E. NINO, as Chief Probation Officer, etc., Plaintiff and Respondent,

J.L.P., Defendant and Appellant.

Docket No. 30385. Court of Appeals of California, First District, Division Three.

April 24, 1972. [87] COUNSEL

Richard Such and Morgan, Beauzay & Hammer for Defendant and Appellant.

Evelle J. Younger, Attorney General, Herbert L. Ashby, Chief Assistant Attorney General, William E. James, Assistant Attorney General, Gloria DeHart and D. Stuart Candland, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

OPINION

BROWN (H.C.), J.

This is an appeal from a judgment and order of the Superior Court of the County of Santa Clara, sitting as a juvenile court, declaring appellant a ward of said court and committing him to the California Youth Authority.

In April 1971, a petition was filed in the Superior Court for Santa Clara County, in session as a juvenile court, alleging that appellant, a person [88] under the age of 21 years, came within the provisions of California Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 in that on April 7, 1971, he violated California Penal Code sections 261, subdivision 3 (count I rape), 236 (count II false imprisonment) and 207 (count III kidnaping).

When appellant first appeared with his attorney in superior court, in session as a juvenile court, he was informed by the court that he had two choices: he could be tried in the adult court, or, if he was tried in the juvenile court and if any count of the petition was sustained that appellant would be committed to the Youth Authority. Defense counsel, after consulting with appellant, agreed to remain in the juvenile court.

In Re JLP

AI Brief

OPINION

BROWN (H.C.), J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief