Skip to content
Name: Manduley v. Superior Court
Case #: S095992
Court: CA Supreme Court
District CalSup
Opinion Date: 02/28/2002
Subsequent History: Rehg. denied 4/17/02. Ad modified 4/17/02. Reversed.

The Fourth District Court of Appeal’s decision which held that Proposition 21 violates the separation of powers doctrine was reversed by the California Supreme Court. A prosecutor’s decision to file charges against a minor in criminal court pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 707(d) is well within the established charging authority of the executive branch, and does not usurp an exclusively judicial power. Further, the absence of a fitness hearing requirement did not deprive the petitioners of due process of law. Nor does prosecutorial discretion to file charges against some minors in criminal court violate the equal protection clause. Finally, Proposition 21 does not violate the single subject rule applicable to initiative measures, because all of the statute’s provisions relate to gang-related and juvenile crime. J. Kennard dissented, holding that Proposition 21 violates the separation of powers doctrine.