People v. Brekke

THE COURT.

The Attorney General has moved to dismiss this appeal from an order of the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Sacramento sitting as a juvenile court, The order appealed from, dated September 11, 1964, was one made pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 707,

1

declaring that the above named minor, John Henry Brekke (already a ward of the court, as will be noted more fully hereinafter) “is not a fit and proper subject to be dealt with under the Juvenile Court Law of the State of California,” and directing the District Attorney of Sacramento County to prosecute him under the general law.

2

The order contained findings that a “supplemental petition” had been filed August 21, 1964, by the probation officer under section 602 alleging that said minor on August 19, 1964, had murdered one Julius Daniel Mieheletti, that a hearing had been held upon said petition and evidence taken, that said minor was over 16 years of age, and would not be amenable to the care, treatment and training program of the facilities of the juvenile court.

The motion to dismiss the appeal is upon the ground that the order is nonappealable. The question presented has novelty because it involves an interpretation of the provisions of section 800

3

(which covers those orders, judgments and decrees of the juvenile court which are appealable), and particularly that portion thereof making appealable “any sub

[198]

sequent order” to a judgment “assuming jurisdiction and declaring any person to be a person described in Section 602.”

The interpretation is to be made with reference to a situation unique so far as the case law of California is concerned.

At the time of the petition charging said minor with murder he had already been involved in the theft of an automobile and had been adjudged a ward of the juvenile court under section 602

4