People v. Garcia

California Court of Appeal Mar 21, 1962 No. Civ. 82Published

Before: Conley

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the juvenile court's judgment, holding that the record showed no reversible error and that the absence of counsel did not constitute a denial of due process under the law as it existed at the time.

Issues

Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the juvenile court's finding.
Whether the trial court erred in considering the probation officer's report.
Whether the minor was denied due process by the absence of counsel at the hearing.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“since the appeal is upon the judgment roll alone, we must assume that the proceedings taken in the lower court were regular in all respects”

“the report of the probation officer became a judicial record when it was filed with the juvenile court and that court not only had the right but the duty to consider it in deciding the case.”

“the fact that a minor was not represented by counsel in the juvenile court did not constitute a denial of due process”

CONLEY, P. J.

The minor, Robert Garcia, appeals from the judgment of the Juvenile Court of Madera County which found that he came within the provisions of subdivision (m) of section 700 of the Welfare and Institutions Code because he “. . . did unlawfully kill Carmen Chavira, a human being, without malice and upon a sudden quarrel or heat of passion, ...” and directed that his ease be transferred for further proceedings to Fresno County where he resided.

The brief of the appellant states that the Juvenile Court of Fresno County afterwards committed him to the Youth Authority but that execution of the commitment was suspended pending this appeal and that in the meantime he has been in the custody of his parents. The further proceedings in Fresno County are, of course, not included in this appeal, and the statement in appellant’s brief with respect thereto is immaterial.

The hearing was conducted and the appeal taken under the Juvenile Court Act as it existed prior to its repeal, reenactment, and recodification by the Legislature in the year 1961. The references to sections of the Welfare and Institutions

[664]

Code in this opinion, except as otherwise indicated, are to the sections as they were numbered before the re-enactment.

The proceeding wras instituted through the filing of a petition by Jerry D. Hill, Assistant Probation Officer, which recited that Robert Garcia was in the County of Madera; that he was 17 years of age; that he came within the provisions of subdivision (m) of section 700 of the Welfare and Institutions Code in that on or about the 25th day of October, 1959, in Madera County he did unlawfully kill Carmen Chavira, a human being, without malice and upon a sudden quarrel or heat of passion, thereby violating section 192.1 of the Penal Code; that the names and residences of his parents were Clemente Garcia and Pauline Garcia of 17217 West Dakota, ICerman, California. A citation was regularly issued and served upon the parents (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 726) and an extensive report of the probation officer was filed. The hearing prescribed by law was regularly held on January 19, 1960 (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 732). The minor and his mother and father and the probation officer of the county of Madera were present in court and were sworn and testified as is shown by the minutes contained in the clerk’s transcript. The court found that the minor was a fit and proper subject for juvenile court proceedings and that all of the allegations of the verified petition were true; he was made a ward of the juvenile court for the purpose of transfer to Fresno County, where he resided; he was released to the custody of his parents until further proceedings could be held in the Juvenile Court of Fresno County. In due course, the juvenile filed his appeal. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 580.)

People v. Garcia

AI Brief

CONLEY, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief