Daryl K. v. Superior Court

California Court of Appeal Sep 30, 1977 No. Civ. No. 51620; Civ. No. 51716Published

Before: Cobey

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that juvenile courts cannot detain minors in county jail without an express finding, supported by substantial evidence, that no other proper facilities exist under Welfare and Institutions Code section 207, or a finding under section 707.1 that public or inmate safety necessitates such transfer.

Issues

Whether a juvenile court may detain a minor in county jail without an express finding supported by substantial evidence that no other proper facilities exist.
Whether a juvenile court may transfer a minor to county jail without finding that the safety of the public or juvenile hall inmates cannot otherwise be protected.

Disposition. Peremptory writ of mandate granted.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“a person under the age of 18 years may not be detained in county jail unless the juvenile court has expressly found that there are no other proper and adequate facilities for the care and detention of that person”

“before a juvenile court may order a minor in the situation of petitioners to be transferred from juvenile hall to county jail, it must first find that the safety of the public or the inmates at juvenile hall cannot otherwise be protected.”

[815]Opinion

COBEY, J. We have consolidated the above entitled cases for purposes of oral argument and decision. In both cases we have issued in response to petitions filed by the Los Angeles County Public Defender alternative writs of mandate directing the respondent Juvenile Court of the County of Los Angeles to vacate its orders detaining the petitioning minors (Daryl K. and Kenneth P.) in county jail during the pendency of adult court proceedings against them and to enter instead an order detaining them in juvenile hall or to show cause before us why we should not mandamus it to do so. Respondent court has filed a return and answer to our alternative writs of mandate.1

The issue posed by these proceedings is in large part a question of statutory construction. For many years the Welfare and Institutions Code has contained a two-sentence section, now numbered 207 and formerly numbered 507 and 731, reading currently as follows: “No court, judge, referee, or peace officer shall knowingly detain in any jail or lockup any person under the age of 18 years, unless a judge of the juvenile court shall determine that there are no other proper and adequate facilities for the care and detention of such person, or unless such person has been transferred by the juvenile court to another court for proceedings not under the juvenile court law and has been charged with or convicted of a felony. If any person under the age of 18 years is transferred by the juvenile court to another court and is charged with or convicted of a felony as herein provided and is not released pending hearing, such person may be committed to the care and custody of a sheriff, constable, or other peace officer who shall keep such person in the juvenile hall or in such other suitable place as such latter court may direct, provided that no such person shall be detained in or committed to any hospital except for medical or other remedial care and treatment or observation.”

In 1975 the Legislature added (by Stats. 1975, ch. 1266, § 5) section 707.1 to the Welfare and Institutions Code. This section reads: “If the minor is declared not a fit and proper subject to be dealt with under the juvenile court law, the district attorney or other appropriate prosecuting officer shall acquire the authority to file an accusatory pleading against [816]

Daryl K. v. Superior Court

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief