People v. Ray O.

[138]

Opinion

HOPPER, J.

Ray O., a juvenile, was charged by supplemental petition in juvenile court with three counts of burglary. At the jurisdictional hearing on October 25, 1978, Ray O. admitted two of the three counts and the third count was dismissed on motion of the district attorney pursuant to a plea bargain. On November 8, 1978, a dispositional hearing was held before Judge John M. Nairn. Judge Naim did not preside over the jurisdictional hearing held on October 25, 1978. The oral proceedings at this dispositional hearing were not preserved because there was no court reporter present. The juvenile court read and considered the probation report, declared Ray O. a ward of the court, and committed him to the California Youth Authority (hereinafter CYA) for a period not to exceed four years.

Ray O. appeals contending that the juvenile court abused its discretion in sending him to CYA and that he was entitled to have the same judge at his jurisdictional and dispositional hearings.

As the Attorney General suggests, this matter should be reversed because there is no reporter’s transcript of the dispositional hearing. The Attorney General agrees that the most practical solution is to hold a new dispositional hearing. Under Welfare and Institutions Code section 677 a juvenile is entitled to a complete reporter’s transcript. Failure to provide a reporter’s transcript is error

(In re Steven B.

(1979) 25 Cal.3d 1, 6 [157 Cal.Rptr. 510, 598 P.2d 480];

In re Andrew M.

(1977) 74 Cal.App.3d 295, 297 [141 Cal.Rptr. 350];

In re David T.

(1976) 55 Cal.App.3d 798, 802 [127 Cal.Rptr. 729]). Without a transcript the record is simply inadequate to enable an appellate court to pass upon the issue of proper disposition (see

People

v.

Apalatequi

(1978) 82 Cal.App.3d 970, 973 [147 Cal.Rptr. 473]). We are unable to determine whether or not the juvenile court abused its discretion in sending Ray O. to CYA. Nor may Ray O. be required to rely on an alleged fair substitute (see