Juan G. v. Super. Ct. 10/15/12 CA2/7

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » California » 2nd Appellate District » 2012 » Juan G. v. Super. Ct. 10/15/12 CA2/7

State: California

Court: California Eastern District Court

Docket No: B241316

Case Date: 10/15/2012

Plaintiff: Juan G.

Defendant: Super. Ct. 10/15/12 CA2/7

Preview:Filed 10/15/12

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SEVEN

JUAN G., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent.

B241316 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. FJ49907)

THE PEOPLE, Real Party in Interest.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS in Mandate. Robert J. Totten, Commissioner. Petition Granted. Ronald L. Brown, Public Defender of Los Angeles County, Albert J. Menaster, Robert Krauss and Michael A. Theberge, Deputy Public Defenders, for Petitioner. No appearance for Respondent. Steve Cooley, District Attorney of the County of Los Angeles, Roberta Schwartz and Shirley S.N. Sun, Deputy District Attorneys, for Real Party in Interest.

Sixteen-year-old Juan G. was named in two wardship petitions filed in juvenile court alleging he had committed attempted murder and violated a criminal street gang injunction. After the People filed a criminal complaint directly in superior court charging Juan with murder in an unrelated incident, the pending juvenile court petitions were transferred to adult criminal court without a fitness hearing. The juvenile court reasoned the district attorneys discretionary direct filing of the murder complaint constituted a finding of unfitness within the meaning of the governing transfer statute, Welfare and Institutions Code section 707.01, subdivision (a)(3)(A), and no formal fitness hearing or additional finding of Juans unfitness was required to transfer the pending wardship petitions. We agree with Juan a judicial finding of unfitness following a hearing was required before the wardship petitions could be transferred to adult court. The juvenile courts contrary conclusion failed to consider the express language of section 606, which, in the circumstances presented here, prohibits a criminal prosecution based on the facts underlying a wardship petition absent a finding of unfitness by the juvenile court. In addition, the courts broad construction of the language in the transfer statute ignored the incremental development of the relevant juvenile law and violated fundamental principles of statutory interpretation disfavoring the implied repeal of existing law. Accordingly, we grant Juans petition for a writ of mandate and direct respondent Los Angeles Superior Court to vacate its order deeming him unfit for juvenile court treatment and thereafter to conduct a formal fitness hearing pursuant to section 707. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On January 13, 2012 the People filed a wardship petition under section 602 alleging Juan had committed the crime of attempted murder (Pen. Code,

Download B241316.PDF