Skip to content
Name: In re Samuel J.
Case #: A092914
District 1 DCA
Division: 5
Opinion Date: 10/25/2001
Subsequent History: Rev. granted 1/29/02. Rev. dismissed 6/12/02 & remanded. Depublished.

The admission of hearsay at the minor’s probation revocation hearing under Welfare and Institutions Code section 777, as revised by Proposition 21, without a showing of the declarant’s unavailability or good cause was reversible error as a denial of federal due process. A police officer was permitted to testify as to statements of staff at the minor’s placement regarding conduct of the minor which was in violation of probation. The staff were the only percipient witnesses, and thus the need for confrontation was particularly important in order to assess the witnesses’ demeanor. Simply establishing the reliability…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Garrett
Case #: H021589
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 6 DCA
Opinion Date: 10/23/2001
Subsequent History: Rev. denied 1/29/02.

Appellant pleaded guilty to a residential burglary and two other offenses occurring in 1998. The court found true five "strikes" priors, and appellant was sentenced to 25 years to life, in May of 2000, after the passage of Proposition 21. On appeal, appellant argued that Proposition 21 amended the definition of serious felony burglary under Penal Code section 1192.7, subdivision (c)(18), and that his prior second degree residential burglaries were not strikes under the new section. The appellate court here found appellant’s argument to be "wishful thinking." Although the court found uncertainty in the amended statute’s…

View Full Summary
Name: Resendiz v. Superior Court (People)
Case #: D036738
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 05/16/2001
Subsequent History: DEPUBLISHED 8/8/01 (S098656)

Editor's note: this case has been depublished. Proposition 21 (The Gang Violence and Juvenile Crime Prevention Initiative) (effective 3/8/00) permits the prosecuting authority, in its discretion to file certain charges in either adult or juvenile court under Welfare and Institutions Code section 707, subdivision (d). By placing within the discretion of the prosecutor the determination of which of two legislatively authorized sentencing schemes are available to the courts, Proposition 21 violates the constitutional principle of separation of powers between the executive and judicial branches. The court also concluded that section 707, subdivision (d) was severable from the remainder…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Abasta
Case #: B145552
District 2 DCA
Division: 5
Opinion Date: 10/04/2001
Subsequent History: Rev. granted 1/3/02. Rev. dismissed 5/15/02 and remanded. Depublished.

Proposition 21 does not violate the single subject rule. Its provisions are reasonably related to the purpose of the initiative to reduce juvenile and gang-related…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Superior Court (Gevorgyan)
Case #: B147452
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 08/10/2001
Subsequent History: None

Proposition 21 requires that juveniles be prosecuted by way of information following a preliminary hearing, and not by indictment by grand jury. Therefore, the indictment of the minors for murder had to be…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. James
Case #: B146548
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 08/27/2001
Subsequent History: None

Appellant was charged with a felony and two prior "strikes" for assault with a firearm and for shooting into an inhabited dwelling. At the time the prior offenses were committed, those offenses were only serious felonies if the defendant personally used a firearm or inflicted great bodily injury. In March, 2000, Proposition 21 amended Penal Code section 1192.7, making both of the offenses serious felonies. The trial court struck the two prior "strikes," concluding that application of the law to prior convictions suffered before the effective date of Proposition 21 violated the prohibition against ex post facto…

View Full Summary
Name: In re Marcus A.
Case #: J152626
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 08/08/2001
Subsequent History: None

Proposition 21, which became effective on March 8, 2000, changed the operation of Welfare and Institutions Code section 777, which provides for a hearing on the issue of a more restrictive placement upon a violation of probation. Since Proposition 21, any conduct which violates probation but which is also a criminal offense may not longer be pursued under section 777, which permits proof by a preponderance of the evidence. Instead, a new section 602 petition, which requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt, must be…

View Full Summary
Name: In re Eduardo C.
Case #: B142094
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 4
Opinion Date: 07/19/2001
Subsequent History: None

The court held the record and probation report failed to provide sufficient facts to support imposition of the duty to register as a gang member under Proposition 21 (Pen. Code, sec. 186.30). There was no showing of a prior conviction for or enhancement of section 186.22, or that the crime was gang related, as required by the…

View Full Summary