JESUS G. v. Superior Court

Opinion

KINGSLEY, Acting P. J.

On January 18, 1977, a petition was duly filed, alleging that Jesus was a person within section 602 of the Welfare and Institutions Code in that he was guilty of a violation of section 10851 of the Vehicle Code (joyriding), two violations of section 217 of the Penal Code (attempted murder), and one violation of section 211 of the Penal Code (robbery). On January 25, 1977, after extended proceedings, a referee, in a proceeding under section 707 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, found him to be fit for juvenile court proceedings. On the request of the People, a rehearing was held before a judge who found him unfit. The only findings in that order were as follows:

“The Court Finds: The minor not fit to be tried under the Juvenile Court Law.

“Court Finds: The circumstances and gravity of the offense alleged to have been committed by the minor.”

On petition of the minor, we issued our alternative writ of mandate, directing the juvenile court either to “(a) vacate and set aside the order of March 31, 1977, finding petitioner unfit to be tried in juvenile court, and enter a new and different order determining the question based upon a legally sufficient statement of reasons (see

People

v.

Chi Ko Wong

(1976) 18 Cal.3d 698 [135 Cal.Rptr. 392, 557 P.2d 976]), or . . .” to show cause why we should not issue a peremptoiy writ.

On May 26, 1977, purportedly in compliance with that writ, the juvenile court vacated its earlier order and entered a new order in the following language:

“This court sets forth the following findings in the disposition proceeding of petition filed on March I, 1977, having read and considered the social study filed and said report admitted in evidence by reference:

[222]

“The court finds that minor is not a fit and proper subject to be dealt with under the Juvenile Court Law in that minor was 16 years of age or over and that the minor would not be amenable to the care, treatment, and training program available through the facilities of the Juvenile Court based on the circumstances and gravity of the offense alleged to have been committed by the minor.”