Bryan, In re

• Decision Date: 28 April 1976
• Docket Number: Cr. 19038
• Citation: Bryan, In re, 129 Cal.Rptr. 293, 16 Cal.3d 782, 548 P.2d 693 (Cal. 1976)
• Parties: , 548 P.2d 693 In re Alfredo Ray BRYAN on Habeas Corpus.
• Court: California Supreme Court

Page 293

129 Cal.Rptr. 293

16 Cal.3d 782, 548 P.2d 693

In re Alfredo Ray BRYAN on Habeas Corpus.

Cr. 19038.

Supreme Court of California In Bank.

April 28, 1976.

Hearing Denied May 26, 1976.

Robert L. Walker, San Francisco, for petitioner.

Evelle J. Younger, Atty. Gen., Jack R. Winkler, Chief Asst. Atty. Gen., Edward P. O'Brien, Asst. Atty. Gen., Robert R. Granucci and Harriet Wiss Hirsch, Deputy Attys.Gen., for respondent.

WRIGHT, Chief Justice.

Alfredo Ray Bryan seeks a writ of habeas corpus asserting that a juvenile court adjudication of wardship constituted a first subjection to jeopardy which precluded a subsequent prosecution and conviction for the identical conduct on which the wardship determination was grounded.Petitioner relies on Breed v. Jones(1975), 421 U.S. 519, 95 S.Ct. 1779, 44 L.Ed.2d 346, which, if it is to aid him, must be given retroactive effect.We conclude that petitioner's contentions are meritorious and grant the writ as hereinafter provided.

In 1969 when petitioner was 16 years of age, juvenile court proceedings were commenced wherein it was alleged that he was within the jurisdiction of the court because he had murdered one victim and had assaulted, with intent to murder, a second victim.(Welf. & Inst.Code, § 602.)After an ineffective 1969 hearing (seeAlfred B. v. Superior Court(1970)3 Cal.3d 718, 91 Cal.Rptr. 605, 478 P.2d 37)the juvenile court in 1971 conducted a three-stage hearing.The court first found that petitioner was a proper subject to be dealt with under the Juvenile Court Law.It next found, after petitioner's admission that he had committed the homicide, that he was subject to the court's jurisdiction as a ward thereof (the 'jurisdictional' hearing).At the final, dispositional hearing petitioner was committed to the Youth Authority.(SeeBryan v. Superior Court(1972)7 Cal.3d 575, 579, 102 Cal.Rptr. 831, 498 P.2d 1079, cert. den., 410 U.S. 944, 93 S.Ct. 1380, 35 L.Ed.2d 610.)However, the authority refused to accept the commitment and petitioner was returned to the juvenile court for further proceedings.The court then found, contrary to its finding in the first of the three-stage hearings, that petitioner was not a proper subject to be dealt with under the Juvenile Court Law and ordered prosecution under the general criminal law.(Id., at pp. 577--578, 102 Cal.Rptr. 831, 498 P.2d 1079.)

Petitioner, by application to this court for extraordinary writs, challenged the right of the state to prosecute him under the general criminal law, claiming inter alia that to so prosecute him would constitute a second subjection to jeopardy after a first subjection in the juvenile court.We held that the constitutional bars against twice being placed in jeopardy apply to juveniles (seeRichard M. v. Superior Court(1971)4 Cal.3d 370, 93 Cal.Rptr. 752, 482 P.2d 664); that jeopardy attaches when the jurisdictional stage of juvenile court proceedings has been entered upon; that such jeopardy, however, is a continuing jeopardy which is not terminated by a dispositional order in the juvenile court or an order by that court transferring proceedings to a criminal court and that there was accordingly no second exposure to jeopardy.(Bryan v. Superior Court, supra, 7 Cal.3d 575, 580--584, 102 Cal.Rptr. 831, 498 P.2d 1079.)After our denial of petitioner's application for extraordinary relief he was tried and convicted in June 1973 of murder in the second degree (Pen.Code, § 187) and of assault with intent to commit murder (Pen.Code, § 217).

In Breed v. Jones, supra, 421 U.S. 519, 95 S.Ct. 1779, 44 L.Ed.2d 346, the United States Supreme Court rejected the concept of a single, continuing jeopardy in a case involving California juvenile-criminal proceedings indistinguishable in substance from the instant proceedings and held that a criminal prosecution after an adjudicatory hearing in the juvenile court'violated the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment, as applied to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment.'(Id., at p. 541, 95 S.Ct. at 1791.)There remain the questions of the temporal applicability of Breed, as the proceedings herein all predated the filing of the decision in that case, and the extent to which petitioner was subjected to jeopardy at the 1971 adjudicatory hearing.

Linkletter v. Walker(1965), 381 U.S. 618, 85 S.Ct. 1731, 14 L.Ed.2d 601 altered the general rule of retroactive application of United States Supreme Court decisions based on constitutional grounds.That case and following cases established criteria for determining whether new constitutional interpretations involving criminal rights are to be given retroactive or only prospective effect.(Robinson v. Neil(1973)409 U.S. 505, 507, 93 S.Ct. 876, 35 L.Ed.2d 29.)The criteria are '(1) the purpose of the new rule; (2) the extent of reliance upon the old rule; and (3) the effect retroactive application would have upon the administration of justice.'(Halliday v. United States(1969)394 U.S. 831, 832, 89 S.Ct. 1498, 1499, 23 L.Ed.2d 16.)

The court has recognized, however, that these criteria do not lend themselves to analysis of cases involving the prohibition against double jeopardy.(Robinson v. Neil, supra, 409 U.S. 505, 507--508, 93 S.Ct. 876, 35 L.Ed.2d 29.)Robinson gave retroactive effect to Waller v. Florida(1970), 397 U.S. 387, 90 S.Ct. 1184, 25 L.Ed.2d 435.Waller rejected the application of the dual sovereignty doctrine to separate municipal and state prosecutions for the same act and held that such prosecutions constituted a double exposure to jeopardy.(Id., at p. 395, 90 S.Ct. 1184.)The court reasoned in Robinson: 'The guarantee against double jeopardy is significantly different from procedural guarantees held in the Linkletter line of cases to have prospective effect only.While this guarantee, like the others, is a constitutional right of the criminal defendant, its practical result is to prevent a trial from taking place at all, rather than to prescribe procedural rules that govern the conduct of a trial.A number of the constitutional rules applied prospectively only under the Linkletter cases were found not to affect the basic fairness of the earlier trial, but to have been directed instead to collateral purposes such as the deterrence of unlawful police conduct, Mapp v. Ohio((1961)367 U.S. 643, 81 S.Ct. 1684, 6 L.Ed.2d 1081).In Waller, however, the Court's ruling was squarely directed to the prevention of the second trial's taking place at all, even though it might have been conducted with a scrupulous regard for all of the constitutional procedural rights of the defendant.'(Robinson v. Neil, supra, 409 U.S. 505, 509, 93 S.Ct. 876, 878, 35 L.Ed.2d 29.)

In deciding Robinson the court did not entirely abandon the three-part Linkletter test.Instead it stated that the reliance element of that test 'will not be wholly absent in the case of constitutional decisions not related to trial procedure . . ..'(Robinson v. Neil, supra, 409 U.S. 505, 509, 93 S.Ct. 876, 878, 35 L.Ed.2d 29.)The court expressly refused to state, however, what weight would be given to the reliance element, having found such reliance absent in the case before it.(Id., at pp. 510--511, 93 S.Ct. 876.)

Although our decision in Bryan was grounded on a concept of continuing jeopardy, such concept was the rule in this state for only a brief three-year period and does not appear to have ever been applied in this context by the United States Supreme Court.(SeeWaller v. Florida, supra397 U.S. 387, 90 S.Ct. 1184, 25 L.Ed.2d 435.)To the contrary, ever increasing constitutional protections have been granted juveniles.(In re Winship(1970)397 U.S. 358, 90 S.Ct. 1068, 25 L.Ed.2d 368;In re Gault(1967)387 U.S. 1, 87 S.Ct. 1428, 18 L.Ed.2d 527.)There is thus little weight which may be accorded to the reliance element of the Linkletter test in the context of this case.

The purpose of the double jeopardy prohibition is manifestly not directed to the fairness or integrity of the fact finding process as emphasized in Linkletter and the cases construing it but to the elimination of the burden of multiple prosecutions.The purpose which the prohibition seeks to accomplish is thus not one which may or may not be served depending on whether a rule designed to implement it is to be given only prospective application.We conclude accordingly that the general rule of retroactivity is applicable without a Linkletter or similar test in the case of a decision compelled by constitutional prohibition against multiple jeopardy.Breed is thus to be given retrospective application.

There can be no doubt that petitioner was subjected to jeopardy at the 1971 adjudicatory hearing when he admitted he killed one victim, or that he was subjected to jeopardy a second time for the same act when he was convicted in adult court for murdering that victim.Accordingly, petitioner's 1973 second degree murder conviction cannot stand.He was also, of course, convicted of assault with intent to commit murder in the 1973 trial, and the question remains whether he was subjected to jeopardy for that act in the 1971 adjudicatory hearing.We conclude that he was.

We are not unmindful or our previous examination of the 1971 adjudicatory hearing in which we stated, 'On the jurisdictional issue the court first, in response to an unopposed motion of petitioner's counsel, dismissed the petition charging aggravated assault.It then read the murder charge to petitioner and advised him of his rights . . ..The court accepted his limited admission that he 'killed Jerry Maddox." (Bryan v. Superior Court, supra, 7 Cal.3d 575, 579, 102 Cal.Rptr. 831, 833, 498 P.2d 1079, 1081.)We have reexamined the reporter's transcript of the adjudication hearing and find that it is ambiguous at best.¹At most it appears that the court intended to dismiss the assault petition, but it did not do so before petitioner admitted the killing.Moreover,...