Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
9 California opinions name it 2 courts 1978–2017 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
People v. Robert G.green2 sentences1989(See also, In re Robert G. (1982) 31 Cal.3d 437, 444 [ 182 Cal.Rptr. 644 , 644 P.2d 837 ] [acknowledging that in a Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 wardship proceeding a minor’s failure to object to a finding of a nonincluded offense may constitute a consent and bar the minor from raising a due process claim on appeal]; Ray v. State (Fla. 1981) 403 So.2d 956 , 961 [instructing on a nonincluded offense may not be cited as error on appeal if the defendant had an opportunity to object to the instructions but failed to do so and the offense is lesser in degree and penalty than the charged 1989(See also, In re Robert G. (1982) 31 Cal.3d 437, 444 [ 182 Cal.Rptr. 644 , 644 P.2d 837 ] [acknowledging that in a Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 wardship proceeding a minor’s failure to object to a finding of a nonincluded offense may constitute a consent and bar the minor from raising a due process claim on appeal]; Ray v. State (Fla. 1981) 403 So.2d 956 , 961 [instructing on a nonincluded offense may not be cited as error on appeal if the defendant had an opportunity to object to the instructions but failed to do so and the offense is lesser in degree and penalty than the charged | 1 | 2 |
People v. D.W.green1 sentence2016(In re D.W. (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 313, 321 (D.W.); see Johnny R., supra, 333 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1584-1585.) Due process requires that a minor, like an adult, have adequate notice of the charges in a wardship proceeding under section 602 so that he or she may intelligently prepare a defense. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Enrique O.green2 sentences2010To the contrary, it appears that the statute included the references to section 602 and wardship proceedings to address "dual status" situations where foster care placement is intended to promote the best interests of the child (§ 241.1; see Enrique O., supra , 137 Cal.App.4th at p. 734 ), or cases in which the delinquency proceedings are based on acts which would not be crimes if committed by an adult, such as underage drinking ( 137 Cal.App.4th at p. 734 , fn. 3). 2010To the contrary, it appears that the statute included the references to section 602 and wardship proceedings to address "dual status" situations where foster care placement is intended to promote the best interests of the child (§ 241.1; see Enrique O., supra , 137 Cal.App.4th at p. 734 ), or cases in which the delinquency proceedings are based on acts which would not be crimes if committed by an adult, such as underage drinking ( 137 Cal.App.4th at p. 734 , fn. 3). | 1 | 1 |
Roberts v. Stategreen2 sentences1989(See also, In re Robert G. (1982) 31 Cal.3d 437, 444 [ 182 Cal.Rptr. 644 , 644 P.2d 837 ] [acknowledging that in a Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 wardship proceeding a minor’s failure to object to a finding of a nonincluded offense may constitute a consent and bar the minor from raising a due process claim on appeal]; Ray v. State (Fla. 1981) 403 So.2d 956 , 961 [instructing on a nonincluded offense may not be cited as error on appeal if the defendant had an opportunity to object to the instructions but failed to do so and the offense is lesser in degree and penalty than the charged 1989(See also, In re Robert G. (1982) 31 Cal.3d 437, 444 [ 182 Cal. Rptr. 644 , 644 P.2d 837 ] [acknowledging that in a Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 wardship proceeding a minor's failure to object to a finding of a nonincluded offense may constitute a consent and bar the minor from raising a due process claim on appeal]; Ray v. State (Fla. 1981) 403 So.2d 956 , 961 [instructing on a nonincluded offense may not be cited as error on appeal if the defendant had an opportunity to object to the instructions but failed to do so and the offense is lesser in degree and penalty than the charge | 1 | 1 |
In Re Misenergreen2 sentences1988Section 213 has existed in some form for decades. [8] By contrast, sections 207 and 601, subdivision (b) were enacted comparatively recently. (10) Thus, one could infer that the Legislature intended sections 207 and 601, subdivision (b) to limit a court's power under section 213 because later enacted statutes ordinarily control over previously enacted statutes and we should assume the Legislature was aware of section 213 when it enacted sections 207 and 601, subdivision (b). ( In re Misener (1985) 38 Cal.3d 543, 553 [ 213 Cal. Rptr. 569 , 698 P.2d 637 ]; Fuentes v. Workers' Comp. 1988Section 213 has existed in some form for decades. [8] By contrast, sections 207 and 601, subdivision (b) were enacted comparatively recently. (10) Thus, one could infer that the Legislature intended sections 207 and 601, subdivision (b) to limit a court's power under section 213 because later enacted statutes ordinarily control over previously enacted statutes and we should assume the Legislature was aware of section 213 when it enacted sections 207 and 601, subdivision (b). ( In re Misener (1985) 38 Cal.3d 543, 553 [ 213 Cal. Rptr. 569 , 698 P.2d 637 ]; Fuentes v. Workers' Comp. | 1 | 1 |
Fuentes v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Boardgreen2 sentences1984Appeals Bd. (1976) 16 Cal.3d 1, 7 [ 128 Cal.Rptr. 673 , 547 P.2d 449 ].) The fallacy of the People’s argument is that it assumes there are no other “convictions” or “criminal proceedings” to which the word “juvenile” could refer in subdivision (f) of article I, section 28, other than wardship proceedings under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602. 1984Appeals Bd. (1976) 16 Cal.3d 1, 7 [ 128 Cal.Rptr. 673 , 547 P.2d 449 ].) The fallacy of the People’s argument is that it assumes there are no other “convictions” or “criminal proceedings” to which the word “juvenile” could refer in subdivision (f) of article I, section 28, other than wardship proceedings under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602. | 1 | 1 |
Bell v. United Statesgreen2 sentences1979Code, § 669; see People v. Ralph (1944) 24 Cal.2d 575, 581 [ 150 P.2d 401 ]; Bell v. United States (1955) 349 U.S. 81, 83 [ 99 L.Ed. 905, 910 , 75 S.Ct. 620 ].) Section 602 wardship proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature. 1979Code, § 669; see People v. Ralph (1944) 24 Cal.2d 575, 581 [ 150 P.2d 401 ]; Bell v. United States (1955) 349 U.S. 81, 83 [ 99 L.Ed. 905, 910 , 75 S.Ct. 620 ].) Section 602 wardship proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Ralphgreen1 sentence1979Code, § 669; see People v. Ralph (1944) 24 Cal.2d 575, 581 [ 150 P.2d 401 ]; Bell v. United States (1955) 349 U.S. 81, 83 [ 99 L.Ed. 905, 910 , 75 S.Ct. 620 ].) Section 602 wardship proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature. | 1 | 1 |
Nino v. Gladys R.green2 sentences1978Because section 26, Penal Code and In re Gladys R, 1 Cal.3d 855, 867 [ 83 Cal.Rptr. 671 , 464 P.2d 127 ] presumptively exclude children under 14 from criminal liability and the presumption must be overcome by “clear proof’ before the minor can be declared a ward of the court under section 602, Welfare and Institutions Code, in a section 602 wardship proceeding where the petition alleges the minor is under 14 years of age, knowledge of the wrongfulness of his act becomes an element of the offense the prosecutor must prove in his case in chief. 1978Because section 26, Penal Code and In re Gladys R, 1 Cal.3d 855, 867 [ 83 Cal.Rptr. 671 , 464 P.2d 127 ] presumptively exclude children under 14 from criminal liability and the presumption must be overcome by “clear proof’ before the minor can be declared a ward of the court under section 602, Welfare and Institutions Code, in a section 602 wardship proceeding where the petition alleges the minor is under 14 years of age, knowledge of the wrongfulness of his act becomes an element of the offense the prosecutor must prove in his case in chief. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Miranda v. Arizona
green
2 sentences2017Prior to and again at the jurisdictional hearing, defense counsel moved to exclude inculpatory statements *206 appellant made to the police on the ground the appellant did not waive his rights under Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 ( Miranda ). 2017Prior to and again at the jurisdictional hearing, defense counsel moved to exclude inculpatory statements *206 appellant made to the police on the ground the appellant did not waive his rights under Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 ( Miranda ). | 2 | 2017–2017 |
In Re GAULT
red
1 sentence2016(Robert G., supra, 31 Cal.3d at p. 442 , citing In re Gault (1967) 387 U.S. 1, 33 .) “Compliance with this requirement has been held by the [United States] Supreme Court to mandate that the minor ‘be notified, in writing, of the specific charge or factual allegations to be considered at the hearing, and that such written notice be given at the earliest practicable time, and in any event sufficiently in advance of the hearing to permit preparation.’ ” (Robert G., at p. 442, citing In re Gault, at p. 33) In Robert G., the prosecution charged a 14-year-old minor in a wardship petition with assaul | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Ray v. State
green
2 sentences1989(See also, In re Robert G. (1982) 31 Cal.3d 437, 444 [ 182 Cal.Rptr. 644 , 644 P.2d 837 ] [acknowledging that in a Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 wardship proceeding a minor’s failure to object to a finding of a nonincluded offense may constitute a consent and bar the minor from raising a due process claim on appeal]; Ray v. State (Fla. 1981) 403 So.2d 956 , 961 [instructing on a nonincluded offense may not be cited as error on appeal if the defendant had an opportunity to object to the instructions but failed to do so and the offense is lesser in degree and penalty than the charged 1989(See also, In re Robert G. (1982) 31 Cal.3d 437, 444 [ 182 Cal. Rptr. 644 , 644 P.2d 837 ] [acknowledging that in a Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 wardship proceeding a minor's failure to object to a finding of a nonincluded offense may constitute a consent and bar the minor from raising a due process claim on appeal]; Ray v. State (Fla. 1981) 403 So.2d 956 , 961 [instructing on a nonincluded offense may not be cited as error on appeal if the defendant had an opportunity to object to the instructions but failed to do so and the offense is lesser in degree and penalty than the charge | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.