Skip to content
Name: In re Oscar R.
Case #: F151004
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 09/12/2002
Subsequent History: Rev. granted 11/27/02: S110830

Federal and state constitutional prohibitions against ex post facto laws are not violated by the application of Proposition 21 (Welf. & Inst. Code, sec. 777) to probation violations occurring after its effective date, even though the crime for which probation was granted predated March 8, 2000. The juvenile court did not err in admitting reliable hearsay consisting of a probation officer’s report recounting statements by the victim Ivan that he had been harassed and threatened at school by the minor. There was good cause for Ivan’s unavailability on the ground that his presence would pose a risk of…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Gutierrez
Case #: H021567
District 6 DCA
Opinion Date: 07/16/2002
Subsequent History: Rev. denied 10/2/02.

A gang registration requirement of Proposition 21 did not violate ex post facto provisions by applying to one whose offense predated the enactment of Proposition 21, but whose conviction occurred after its effective…

View Full Summary
Name: In re Eddie M.
Case #: B151521
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 7
Opinion Date: 08/06/2002
Subsequent History: Review granted 10/23/02: S109902

Welfare and Institutions Code section 777, as amended by Proposition 21, may be used to initiate proceedings to impose a more restrictive placement based on any violation of a condition of probation, including one that involves arguably criminal conduct, provided no new criminal offense is alleged. The reduced burden of proof in section 777 to preponderance of the evidence for noncriminal probation violations does not violate due…

View Full Summary
Name: Guillory v. Superior Court
Case #: A096442
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 5
Opinion Date: 07/29/2002
Subsequent History: Mod. at 100 CA4th 1303e; Rev. granted 10/23/02: S109642

After Proposition 21, a juvenile may be prosecuted in adult court by grand jury indictment, disagreeing with People v. Superior Court (Gevorgyan) (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 602 [Second District, Division…

View Full Summary
Name: In re Eldridge T.
Case #: A095878
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 4
Opinion Date: 07/29/2002
Subsequent History: Rev. granted 10/30/02; dismissed & remanded on 11/12/03

After the probation department was unable to find an ordered residential placement for the minor which would meet his needs, the court ordered his placement at CYA as the only place where his needs could be met. The court erred. The amendment of Welfare and Institution Code section 777 by Proposition 21 now requires that a more restrictive placement can be made only if the ward has violated a court order or violated a condition of probation not amounting to a…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Scott
Case #: D037416
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 05/16/2002
Subsequent History: None

Proposition 21 is not invalid because of text differences between the proposed initiative measure attached to the circulated petitions and the one attached to the state ballot…

View Full Summary
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…

View Full Summary
Name: Manduley v. Superior Court (San Diego County)
Case #: D036356
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 02/07/2001
Subsequent History: Review granted 4/25/01 (S095992)

By placing within the discretion of the prosecuting authority the determination of which of two legislatively authorized sentencing schemes are available to the courts in cases involving juveniles over the age of 16 at commission of the offense, or over the age of 14 at the time of commission of a specified qualifying offense, Proposition 21's amendment to Welfare and Institutions Code section 707, subdivision (d), violates the separation of powers between the executive and judicial branches in violation of the California Constitution. This issue was properly raised by demurrer in the trial court, and writ review was sought.…

View Full Summary
Name: Williams v. Superior Court
Case #: D038141
District 4 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 11/28/2001
Subsequent History: Rev. granted 2/20/02. Depublished. Dismissed and remanded 5/15/02.

Proposition 21 does not violate the single subject rule. (2-1).

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Simmons
Case #: C036269
District 3 DCA
Opinion Date: 11/26/2001
Subsequent History: Rev. granted 2/20/02 and Rev. dismissed as improvidently granted 5/15/02. Depublished.

Proposition 21 does not violate the single subject rule, the separation of powers doctrine, or principles of due process or equal…

View Full Summary