Garcia, In re
| Decision Date | 21 March 1962 |
| Citation | 20 Cal.Rptr. 313,201 Cal.App.2d 662 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | In the Matter of Robert GARCIA, A Person Within the Juvenile Court Law. Civ. 82. |
Gilbert D. Lopez, Fresno, for appellant.
Stanley Mosk, Atty. Gen., Doris H. Maier, Asst. Atty. Gen., Raymond Momboisse, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent.
The minor, Robert Garcia, appeals from the judgment of the Juvenile Court of Madera County which found that he came within the provisions of subdivision (m) of section 700 of the Welfare and Institutions Code because he '* * * did unlawfully kill Carmen Chavira, a human being, without malice and upon a sudden quarrel or heat of passion, * * *' and directed that his case be transferred for further proceedings to Fresno County where he resided.
The brief of the appellant states that the Juvenile Court of Fresno County afterwards committed him to the Youth Authority but that execution of the commitment was suspended pending this appeal and that in the meantime he has been in the custody of his parents. The further proceedings in Fresno County are, of course, not included in this appeal, and the statement in appellant's brief with respect thereto is immaterial.
The hearing was conducted and the appeal taken under the Juvenile Court Act as it existed prior to its repeal, reenactment, and recodification by the Legislature in the year 1961, Welfare & Inst. Code, § 500 et seq. The references to sections of the Welfare and Institutions Code in this opinion, except as otherwise indicated, are to the sections as they were numbered before the re-enactment.
This proceeding was instituted through the filing of a petition by Jerry D. Hill, Assistant Probation Officer, which recited that Robert Garcia was in the County of Madera; that he was 17 years of age; that he came within the provisions of subdivision (m) of section 700 of the Welfare and Institutions Code in that on or about the 25th day of October, 1959, in Madera County he did unlawfully kill Carmen Chavira, a human being, without malice and upon a sudden quarrel or heat of passion, thereby violating section 192, subd. 1 of the Penal Code; that the names and residences of his parents were Clemente Garcia and Pauline Garcia of 17217 West Dakota, Kerman, California. A citation was regularly issued and served upon the parents (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 726) and an extensive report of the probation officer was filed. The hearing prescribed by law was regularly held on January 19, 1960 (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 732). The minor and his mother and father and the probation officer of the county of Madera were present in court and were sworn and testified as is shown by the minutes contained in the Clerk's Transcript. The court found that the minor was a fit and proper subject for juvenile court proceedings and that all of the allegations of the verified petition were true; he was made a ward of the juvenile court for the purpose of transfer to Fresno County, where he resided; he was released to the custody of his parents until further proceedings could be held in the Juvenile Court of Fresno County. In due course, the juvenile filed his appeal. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 580.)
The appellant attacks the sufficiency of the evidence to show that he came within subdivision (m) of section 700 of the Welfare and Institutions Code. This alleged point is unavailable to the appellant, because he saw fit to take his appeal solely on the judgment roll; there is no reporter's transcript of the proceedings on file, nor is there any stipulated statement of facts. As is said in In re Le Van, 93 Cal.App.2d 7, 8, 207 P.2d 1066:
'* * * since the appeal is upon the judgment roll alone, we must assume that the proceedings taken in the lower court were regular in all respects (In re Pierce, 127 Cal.App. 773, 775, 16 P.2d 765), and we are confined to an examination of the clerk's transcript on appeal to determine whether there is any reversible error.
'An examination of such record fails to disclose any error, but on the contrary, shows that each document and order was duly and regularly made and entered.'
(See also In re Silva, 213 Cal. 446, 448, 2 P.2d 341; In re Holt, 121 Cal.App.2d 276,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Malinda S., In re
...ha[s] the right but the duty to consider [the probation officer's report] in deciding [a section 701] 11 case." (In re Garcia (1962) 201 Cal.App.2d 662, 665, 20 Cal.Rptr. 313; see also In re Harrison (1963) 215 Cal.App.2d 723, 727-728, 30 Cal.Rptr. 473; In re Biggs, supra, 17 Cal.App.3d at ......
-
Yardley, In Interest of
...when reasonably available. See in this connection In re Halamuda, 85 Cal.App.2d 219, 192 P.2d 781, 783, 784; In re Garcia, 201, Cal.App.2d 662, 20 Cal.Rptr. 313, 315; Appeal of Dattilo, 136 Conn. 488, 72 A.2d 50, 52--54; Jenkins v. Jenkins, 304 Mass. 248, 23 N.E.2d 405, 407, 408. See also K......
-
Rich, In re, 1946
... ... Dealing with the matter, as we must on habeas corpus, as a claim of such substance as to invalidate the whole proceedings, we cannot find that it reaches such stature. In re Mears, 124 Vt. 131, 136, 198 A.2d 27; In re Garcia, 201 Cal.App.2d 662, 665, 20 Cal.Rptr. 313. As is pointed out in Swann v. District of Columbia, D.C.Mun.App., 152 A.2d 200, there is no constitutional shortcoming. So long as the proceeding is, as it is, in the nature of a custody hearing concerned with the welfare of the child, and conforms to ... ...
-
Castro, In re
...and against the minor was heard by the court. In addition, the judge received a report from the probation officer (In re Garcia, 201 Cal.App.2d 662, 665, 20 Cal.Rptr. 313), and a written medical opinion from Antonio Perelli-Minetti, Jr., M.D., a psychiatrist appointed for the At the end of ......