ALFRED B. v. Superior Court

California Supreme Court

ALFRED B. v. Superior Court

478 P.2d 37, 3 Cal. 3d 718, 91 Cal. Rptr. 605, 1970 Cal. LEXIS 242

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedDecember 28, 1970

DocketL.A. 29765

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 478 P.2d 37 (ALFRED B. v. Superior Court) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

ALFRED B. v. Superior Court, 478 P.2d 37, 3 Cal. 3d 718, 91 Cal. Rptr. 605, 1970 Cal. LEXIS 242 (Cal. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

*719 Opinion

WRIGHT, C.J.

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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

*719 Opinion

WRIGHT, C.J.

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

478 P.2d 37, 3 Cal. 3d 718, 91 Cal. Rptr. 605, 1970 Cal. LEXIS 242, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alfred-b-v-superior-court-cal-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack