Agnew v. Superior Court In and For Los Angeles County
| Decision Date | 29 May 1953 |
| Citation | 118 Cal.App.2d 230,257 P.2d 661 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | . Civ. 19511. District Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 1, California |
Rosemary Agnew, in pro. per.
Harold W. Kennedy, County Counsel, and Wm. E. Lamoreaux, Deputy County Counsel, Los Angeles, for respondents.
On December 11, 1951, a petition was filed in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County sitting in separate session as a juvenile court, charging petitioner Rosemary Agnew, a juvenile, with the commission of two misdemeanors and praying that she be made a ward of the juvenile court. At that time petitioner was of the age of seventeen years and married to R. W. Agnew. On December 26, 1951, respondent juvenile court made its order declaring petitioner a ward of that court, pursuant to the provisions of subdivision (m), § 700 of the Welfare and Institutions Code.
From that order petitioner, joined by her husband, filed notice of appeal to this court. After the filing of said notice of appeal, and on January 16, 1952, respondent juvenile court made its order finding said minor an unfit subject for consideration by said court and remanding the case to the Municipal Court of Los Angeles Judicial District for prosecution under the general law. On January 17, 1952, a complaint was filed in respondent municipal court against petitioner Rosemary Agnew. A notice of appeal from the aforesaid order of the juvenile court was filed on January 16, 1952.
The municipal court action proceeded to trial and petitioner was found guilty of one of the offenses charged against her. An appeal from said judgment of conviction resulted in a reversal thereof by the Appellate Department of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, 114 Cal.App.2d Supp. 841, 250 P.2d 369. Thereupon, said municipal court action was reset for trial on January 28, 1953.
Neither of petitioner Rosemary Agnew's appeals from the foregoing juvenile court orders have been perfected for the reason that she has been unable to obtain a reporter's and clerk's transcript from the juvenile court.
On January 26, 1953, petitioner and her husband filed in this court a 'Petition for aid to docket a pending appeal, for an order to show cause and restraining order'.
The petition alleged the filing of the aforesaid petition in the juvenile court to declare Rosemary Agnew a ward of said court. That the court made its order declaring her a ward thereof and committing her to juvenile hall until January 16, 1952, to which date the cause was continued and placed on 'Appearance Calendar'. The petition then alleges that within the time allowed by law petitioner Rosemary Agnew and her husband, 'did duly take an appeal to the above entitled District Court of Appeal from said order of juvenile court made on December 26, 1951, ordering said Rosemary Agnew made a ward of said juvenile court'. That a written notice of appeal was filed, together with a request for clerk's and reporter's transcript on appeal. That the judge of respondent juvenile court refused to order said transcripts and directed the clerk and reporter not to prepare the same.
The petitioners further aver that following the hearing on January 16, 1952, when petitioner Rosemary Agnew was found by respondent juvenile court to be an unfit subject for consideration by said court, and the cause referred to the Municipal Court of Los Angeles Judicial District for prosecution under the general law, petitioner Rosemary Agnew and her said husband regularly and duly filed a timely notice of appeal from said order. That a request was regularly made to the judge of respondent juvenile court for a clerk's and reporter's transcript but that said request was denied, and the clerk and reporter were instructed by the judge of the juvenile court not to prepare said transcripts.
It is then alleged that by reason of the foregoing appeal taken from the order of respondent juvenile court made on January 16, 1952, the said municipal court is without jurisdiction to proceed with the trial of petitioner Rosemary Agnew on the complaint filed in the latter court pursuant to the aforesaid order of respondent juvenile court.
On January 27, 1953, this court issued an order directed to respondent juvenile court to show cause why it should not prepare and lodge in this court a clerk's and reporter's transcript in the above-mentioned appeals taken by petitioners. The order to show cause was also directed to the Municipal Court of Los Angeles Judicial District directing that tribunal to show cause before this court why it should not be restrained from proceeding with the trial of that certain action above referred to, and which was commenced pursuant to the order of respondent juvenile court made on January 16, 1952, referring the cause to said respondent municipal court.
On the return day of the order to show cause both respondent courts appeared and filed a demurrer contending that the aforesaid petition does not state facts sufficient to entitle the petitioner to the relief prayed for.
In that regard, respondents first contend that the appeal from the order declaring petitioner a ward of the juvenile court was settled and determined by reason of the subsequent order of January 16, 1952, remanding the matter to the municipal court for prosecution...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Allgood
...553 (hg. den. May 19, 1969); and Cal. Juvenile Court Practice (Cont.Ed.Bar 1968) § 140, pp. 128--129. Cf. Agnew v. Superior Court (1953), 118 Cal.App.2d 230, 233--234, 257 P.2d 661.) 3 In fact, following the denial of his motion in the superior court criminal proceedings, the defendant did ......
-
Corey, In re
...an order adjudging a person to be a ward of the court even though an appeal is pending from such order. (See Agnew v. Superior Court, 118 Cal.App.2d 230, 233-234, 257 P.2d 661.)6 § 778 provides as follows: 'Any parent or other person having an interest in a child who is a ward or dependent ......
-
Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. Delfino, S121400.
...331 P.2d 245 [holding that an appeal precludes the trial court from modifying the appealed order]; Agnew v. Superior Court (1953) 118 Cal.App.2d 230, 234, 257 P.2d 661 (Agnew) [holding that an appeal precludes the trial court from enforcing the appealed 7. (See, e.g., Townsel v. Superior Co......
-
Doe, In re
...proceedings. See P.H. v. State, 504 P.2d 837 (Alaska 1972); Graham v. Ridge, 107 Ariz. 387, 489 P.2d 24 (1971); Agnew v. Superior Court, 118 Cal.App.2d 230, 257 P.2d 661 (1953); In re Doe I, 50 Hawaii 537, 444 P.2d 459 (1968); Templeton v. State, 202 Kan. 89, 447 P.2d 158 (1968); Aye v. Sta......