Fare v. John G.

California Court of Appeal Jul 29, 1977 No. Crim. 29579Published

Before: Kingsley

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that it is procedurally proper to initiate proceedings against a juvenile ward for a new criminal offense via a new section 602 petition rather than a section 777 supplemental petition.

Issues

Whether a new section 602 petition is a permissible procedural vehicle for addressing a new criminal offense committed by a juvenile ward, or if a section 777 supplemental petition is required.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“the proposers of section 777 did not contemplate that that section must, necessarily, be utilized in cases such as the one at bench where a different and more onerous disposition is to be based on a new criminal offense.”

“it seems that that end may often be more effectively accomplished by using, as in the case at bench, the device of a new 602 petition.”

Opinion

KINGSLEY, J.

John had, earlier, under proceedings brought pursuant to section 602 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, been declared a ward of the court and placed in a camp facility. While there, he engaged in an altercation with one of the camp counselors. As a result of that incident, a new petition, under section 602, was filed against him, alleging that he had committed a battery, in violation of section 242 of the Penal Code. At the adjudication hearing on that petition, he admitted an altercation with the counselor, but denied being the aggressor and explained the incident as due both to the counselor’s refusal to let him complete an explanation of earlier conduct and to the failure of the camp authorities to give him needed anti-hyperkinetic medicine. At the disposition hearing, the judge, although expressing the opinion that the altercation charged was a minimal and technical violation of section 242, took into consideration a probation report showing that John had had a long history of violent conduct at the camp and concluded that the entire picture required a Youth Authority

[245]

commitment. John has appealed from the order committing him to the Youth Authority. We affirm that order.

On this appeal, John contends that it was procedurally improper to proceed against him by a new section 602 petition instead of filing a supplementary petition under section 777 of the Welfare and Institutions Code.

We disagree with that contention. In its report recommending the enactment of section 777, the Special Study Commission on Juvenile Justice said:

“Recommendation No. 14

“Require the filing of a new petition and a full-scale hearing if a juvenile court ward’s original treatment disposition is to be modified by further restricting his freedom as a result of a new delinquent act. If such action is contemplated because the minor fails to respond to the original treatment disposition

rather than because of a new offense,

provide that a supplemental petition may be the basis for the court hearing.” (Italics added.)

Fare v. John G.

AI Brief

KINGSLEY, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief