Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

R.E. v. Superior Court (People)

California Court of Appeals, Sixth District

November 20, 2019

R.E., Petitioner,
v.
The SUPERIOR COURT OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY, Respondent; The People, Real Party in Interest.

         [255 Cal.Rptr.3d 304] Santa Clara County Superior Court, Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. 15JV41464H & I, Hon. Katherine Lucero, Judge.

Page 374

         COUNSEL

         Counsel for Real Party in Interest: The People, Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Jeffrey M. Laurence, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Laurence K. Sullivan, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, René A. Chacón, Supervising Deputy Attorney General,

          Counsel for Petitioner: R.E., By appointment of the Court under the Santa Clara County Independent Defense Counsel Office Eric Weaver, Lana M. Kreidie

          Counsel for Respondent: Superior Court of Santa Clara County, Juvenile Division, No appearance for respondent

          OPINION

         Premo, J.

Page 375

          Minor R.E. petitions for a writ of mandate challenging respondent court’s order granting the People’s motion to transfer him from juvenile court to a court of criminal jurisdiction. (See Welf. & Inst. Code, � 707, subd. (a)(1).)[1]

          On appeal, R.E. argues the juvenile court erred in granting the motion to transfer because it incorrectly determined it lacked authority to order him into custody on a probation violation once he turns 19. R.E. also argues that the probation department’s delay in producing a "ranch failure" report violated his right to due process.

         We agree the juvenile court erred in concluding it would not have the authority to order R.E. into custody if he violated probation after turning 19.[2] We will therefore issue a peremptory writ commanding respondent court to vacate the challenged order and issue a new order denying the motion to transfer.

          I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

         In April and June 2018, the Santa Clara County District Attorney filed juvenile wardship petitions (� 602, subd. (a)) alleging that petitioner R.E.,

Page 376

who was born in June 2000 and had been a ward of the juvenile court since 2016, committed two separate first degree burglaries (Pen. Code, � 460, subd. (a)), one in January 2018 and the other in April 2018.

         [255 Cal.Rptr.3d 305] A. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.