William S., In re
| Decision Date | 28 August 1970 |
| Citation | 10 Cal.App.3d 944,89 Cal.Rptr. 685 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | In re William S., Jr., a person coming under the Juvenile Court Law. Kenneth F. FAIR, as Probation Officer, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. William S., Jr., Defendant and Appellant. Civ. 9959. |
A petition was filed in the Superior Court of San Diego County, sitting as a juvenile court, alleging the minor, William S. Jr., age 16, was a person within the provisions of section 601 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, on the ground he was in danger of leading an idle, dissolute, lewd or immoral life in that for an undetermined period of time he had been using narcotics and dangerous drugs; on March 12, 1969 was apprehended in a home where marijuana was found; and had numerous needle marks on his arm from injecting narcotics or dangerous drugs. At the hearing on the petition the minor admitted all the allegations thereof except that alleging he had been apprehended in a home where marijuana was found. A hearing was held before a referee who found all the allegations were true; ordered the minor declared a ward under the provisions of section 601; and directed he be committed to Rancho del Campo in the County of San Diego, a placement facility for wards of the juvenile court.
At the conclusion of the hearing the referee stated:
William replied:
In explanation of the minor's statement, his attorney told the court:
In response the referee stated:
'William, there are certain laws in the book that I don't agree with, either, but just because I don't agree with them doesn't give me a ticket to break them.'
Thereupon the referee and the minor engaged in a discussion respecting the possibility the minor might have been charged with possession of marijuana, a felony, premised on evidence showing the officers found marijuana in the room occupied by him at his home. At the conclusion of this discussion, the referee announced his order committing the minor to Rancho del Campo; stated this order was subject to modification if the psychiatric examination to be performed by the probation department 'contraindicates this disposition'; and made this observation:
1
Five days after the ranch commitment order was made, and before the minor had been sent to the ranch, a supplemental petition was filed in which it was alleged:
'The previous orders of this court have not been effective in the rehabilitation of the above named person, in that:
'Competent medical authority has stated that said minor will not adjust to the ordered program of rehabilitation; and further, said minor has announced his intention to run away from the ordered placement.'
On the next day, following a hearing, the referee found the allegations of the supplemental petition filed 'under Section 601--777 of the Juvenile Court Law' were true and ordered the minor committed to the California Youth Authority.
Each of the foregoing orders by the referee were approved by the judge of the juvenile court. In due course the minor filed a Pro se notice of appeal which we interpret to be a notice of appeal from each of the orders.
Pertinent to the issues raised on appeal are the following provisions of the Juvenile Court Law contained in the Welfare and Institutions Code:
Section 601: 'Any person under the age of 21 years * ** who from any cause is in danger of leading an idle, dissolute, lewd, or immoral life, is within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court which may adjudge such person to be a ward of the court.'
Section 602: 'Any person under the age of 21 years who violates any law of this State * * * defining crime or who, after having been found by the juvenile court to be a person described by Section 601, fails to obey and lawful order of the juvenile court, is within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court, which may adjudge such person to be a ward of the court.'
Section 707: 'At any time during a hearing upon a petition alleging that a minor is, by reason of violation of any criminal statute or ordinance, a person described in Section 602' and it is found the minor was 16 years of age or over at the time of the alleged commission of such offense and would not be amenable to the care, treatment and training program available through the juvenile court, 'the court shall direct the district attorney * * * to prosecute the person under the applicable criminal statute or ordinance and thereafter dismiss the petition * * *'
Section 730: 'When a minor is adjudged a ward of the court on the ground that he is a person described by Section 601, the court * * * may commit the minor to a county juvenile home, ranch, camp, or forestry camp. * * *'
'Such ward may be committed to the Youth Authority only upon a proceeding for the modification of an order of the court conducted pursuant to the provisions of Section 777.'
Section 731: 'When a minor is adjudged a ward of the court on the ground that he is a person described by Section 602, the court may order any of the types of treatment referred to' in other sections 'and as an additional alternative, may commit the minor to the Youth Authority.'
Section 777: 'An order * * * changing or modifying a previous order by directing commitment to the Youth Authority shall be made only after noticed hearing upon a supplemental petition.
'(a) The supplemental petition shall * * * contain a concise statement of facts sufficient to support the conclusion that the previous disposition has not been effective in the rehabilitation of the minor.'
The Juvenile Court Law, as now constituted, accords with the recommendations of the Governor's Study Commission on Juvenile Justice; for wardship purposes places in different categories (1) dependent minors, (2) pre-delinquent...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
A. v. City of New York
... ... In the Matter of Patricia A., a Person Alleged To Be In Need ... of Supervision, Appellant, ... CITY OF NEW YORK, Respondent. * ... * State Report Title: Matter of Patricia A ... Court of Appeals of New York ... July 7, 1972 ... [31 N.Y.2d 84] Rena K. Uviller, William E. Hellerstein, New York City, and Charles Schinitsky, Brooklyn, for appellant ... J. Lee Rankin, Corp. Counsel (Edmund B. Hennefeld and Stanley Buchsbaum, New York City, of counsel), for respondent ... [31 N.Y.2d 85] FULD, Chief Judge ... The ... ...
-
Ronald E., In re
... ... (a).) Typically, a section 777 supplemental petition will be required to move a minor from a foster home or juvenile hall to the custody of the Youth Authority. (See, e.g., In re Arthur N. (1976) 16 Cal.3d 226, 230, 127 Cal.Rptr. 641, 545 P.2d 1345; In re William S. (1970) 10 Cal.App.3d 944, 950.) Since this modification results in a greater intrusion on the minor's liberty, a section 777 petition must contain a statement of the facts which it is alleged demonstrate a need for Youth Authority placement (In re Donna G. (1970) 6 Cal.App.3d 890, 894, 86 ... ...
-
Gerald B., In re
...of a penal violation under the provisions of section 602 a wholly independent basis of jurisdiction. (In re William S. (1970) 10 Cal.App.3d 944, 949, 89 Cal.Rptr. 685; see In re Ronald S., supra.) Thus, the statutory directives of prior referral to the local school attendance review board a......
-
People v. Southern (In re Southern)
... ... (a)(1)) or "a condition of probation not amounting to a crime." ( 777, subd. (a)(2).) 4. Like Willie T., the cases it cited were decided at a time when the standards governing section 777 proceedings differed from those currently applicable. In re William S. (1970) 10 Cal.App.3d 944, 950, In re Denise C. (1975) 45 Cal.App.3d 761, 766, and In re Donna G. (1970) 6 Cal.App.3d 890, 894, concerned the then-required notice and showing that the previous disposition had been ineffective. (See fn. 3, ante.) In re Arthur N. (1976) 16 Cal.3d 226, 233, ... ...