Knight v. Superior Court of Tehama County, 7960
| Decision Date | 08 February 1951 |
| Docket Number | No. 7960,7960 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | . Civ. District Court of Appeal, Third District, California |
Rawlins Coffman, Red Bluff, for petitioner.
Fred N. Howser, Atty. Gen., By Doris H. Maier, Deputy, for respondent.
Petitioner seeks to restrain the Superior Court of Tehama County from further proceedings in an action wherein petitioner and three other juveniles are charged with the commission of certain criminal offenses.
The record before us shows that following the arrest of petitioner and his codefendants a hearing was had in the Justice's Court of Red Bluff Township in the county of Tehama, at which time it appeared that when the alleged offenses were committed petitioner was under the age of eighteen years, to-wit, fifteen years, and that thereupon the matter was certified to the Juvenile Court of Tehama county. During the hearing in that court the report of the probation officer was filed which, among other things, recommended that the petitioner be returned to the certifying court. After some discussion between court and counsel concerning the report the court made its order returning petitioner and his co-defendants to the Justice's Court for further proceedings. At the preliminary hearing in the Justice's Court petitioner, through his court appointed counsel, objected to any proceeding therein upon the grounds that said court had no jurisdiction over him in that (1) under section 834 of the Welfare and Institutions Code as adopted in 1949, no court other than the Juvenile Court has jurisdiction of a minor under the age of sixteen years who is charged with the commission of a crime, and (2) that in any event the Juvenile Court did not find petitioner an unfit subject for consideration by said Juvenile Court. The objections were overruled and petitioner was held to answer in the Superior Court. Upon petitioner's arrangement in the Superior Court his counsel moved that the matter be transferred to the Juvenile Court and again objected to a hearing in that court upon the ground that only the Juvenile Court had sole jurisdiction of the case for the reasons heretofore mentioned. The Superior Court denied his motion and objection and set the matter for trial, whereupon petitioner filed this proceeding.
His argument in support of his first contention is that while the Juvenile Court could, prior to the adoption of said section 834, transfer criminal proceedings involving any one under the age of eighteen years to the appropriate court, the legislature, in adopting said section, indicated its intention that the Juvenile Court could only divest itself of jurisdiction as to minors over the age of sixteen years.
The section in question provides as follows:
We do not agree with petitioner that section 834 can be read independently of the other provisions of the Welfare and Institutions Code. Especially is this true in regard to section 734 of the same code, which provides that, 'If upon the hearing, or at any time thereafter, the court determines that any person alleged to come within the provisions of subdivision (m) of section 700 is not a fit and proper subject to be dealt with under the provisions of this chapter, the court may dismiss the petition, and direct that the person be prosecuted under the general law.'
In People v. Wolff, 182 Cal 728, 190 P. 22, which was a proceeding under the section of the Juvenile Court Act as originally enacted in 1915 and upon which section the present section 734 is based, it was held that the Juvenile Court had the power to determine that a person under sixteen years of age was not a fit subject for further consideration by that court and could direct that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Allgood
...567, 75 Cal.Rptr. 881; Richerson v. Superior Court (1968), 264 Cal.App.2d 729, 731, 70 Cal.Rptr. 350; and Knight v. Superior Court (1951), 102 Cal.App.2d 211, 212, 227 P.2d 62.) On occasion resort has been had to habeas corpus. (See Breed v. Jones, supra, 421 U.S. 519, 523, 95 S.Ct. 1779, 1......
-
Harris, In re
...Cal.2d 374, 389, 10 Cal.Rptr. 829, 359 P.2d 261; People v. Dotson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 891, 896, 299 P.2d 875; Knight v. Superior Court (1951) 102 Cal.App.2d 211, 214--215, 227 P.2d 62; People v. Renteria (1943) 60 Cal.App.2d 463, 470--471, 141 P.2d 37.) Only in those cases in which he could ha......
-
State v. Van Buren
...that standard. See Ex parte State ex rel. Echols, 245 Ala. 353, 17 So.2d 449 (Sup.Ct.1944); Knight v. Superior Court of Tehama County, 102 Cal.App.2d 211, 227 P.2d 62 (D.Ct.App.1951); State ex rel. Boyd v. Rutledge, 321 Mo. 1090, 13 S.W.2d 1061 (Sup.Ct.1929); State ex rel. Norfleet v. Swaff......
-
M. v. Superior Court In and For City and County of San Francisco
...(1920) 182 Cal. 728, 732--733, 190 P. 22; People v. Machado (1957) 150 Cal.App.2d 190, 196, 309 P.2d 903; Knight v. Superior Court (1951) 102 Cal.App.2d 211, 213--214, 227 P.2d 62; People v. Renteria (1943) 60 Cal.App.2d 463, 470, 141 P.2d 37.) That discretion must be exercised in accordanc......