Summary
In Alfred B. v. Superior Court (1970) 3 Cal.3d 718 [ 91 Cal.Rptr. 605, 478 P.2d 37], we held that the juvenile court must reevaluate petitioner's fitness for treatment as a juvenile on the basis of the entire record of his case considered in light of factors set out in Jimmy H. v. Superior Court (1970) 3 Cal.3d 709 [ 91 Cal.Rptr. 600, 478 P.2d 32].
Summary of this case from Bryan v. Superior CourtOpinion
Docket No. L.A. 29765.
December 28, 1970.
COUNSEL
Weberg, MacKenzie Young, Lawrence R. Young, Lyle M. MacKenzie and David F. Aberson for Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
Evelle J. Younger, District Attorney, Harry Wood and Robert J. Lord, Deputy District Attorneys, for Real Party in Interest.
MEMORANDUM CASE
OPINION
Petitioner, a 16-year-old minor charged with several serious offenses, was certified to the superior court for trial as a person not amenable to the care and treatment available through the juvenile court. As in In re Jimmy H., ante, p. 709 [91 Cal. Rptr. 600, 478 P.2d 32], the stated reason given by the juvenile court judge for certifying petitioner for trial as an adult was that section 1800 et seq. of the Welfare and Institutions Code which gave the Youth Authority power to detain him beyond his twenty-first birthday were probably unconstitutional. We concluded in In re Jimmy H., supra, ante, p. 709, that certification of a minor by the juvenile court to the superior court for prosecution as an adult upon such a basis rather than upon the entire record before it is improper. Accordingly, petitioner is entitled to a hearing in which the juvenile court, applying the proper criteria, determines whether petitioner is amenable to treatment as a juvenile.
Let a writ of mandate issue directing respondent court to reconsider petitioner's amenability to treatment as a juvenile in accordance with the views expressed herein.
McComb, J., Peters, J., Tobriner, J., Mosk, J., Burke, J., and Sullivan, J., concurred.