Citations
- 56 Cal. App. 4th 723
Full opinion text
Opinion
HASTINGS, J.
This proceeding challenges the validity of an arrest warrant issued in connection with a “cite-in” pilot program developed by the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office for use in nondetained-minor Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 proceedings. We conclude that the process utilized was ineffective to obtain jurisdiction over the minor and we grant a peremptory writ of mandate.
The Facts
On October 20,1996, Ruben V., petitioner, was detained for possession of narcotics for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351) and driving a motor vehicle without a proper license. (Veh. Code, § 12500, subd. (a).) The police issued a citation on a traffic citation form titled “Notice to Appear,” which the minor signed, promising to appear in Juvenile Court on December 12, 1996.
On December 12, 1996, a petition was filed against petitioner pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602. It alleged two violations of Health and Safety Code section 11351: (1) possession of heroin for sale on November 20, 1996; and (2) possession of cocaine for sale on October 20, 1996.
Petitioner failed to appear on December 12, 1996. The court appointed a public defender to represent petitioner and held the matter over to December 13 for a warrant hearing. The minor did not appear on December 13, and the court issued an arrest warrant.
On December 17, 1996, counsel for petitioner filed a petition for rehearing, seeking to set aside the arrest warrant. The petition urged that the arrest warrant was illegally issued because the original citation did not conform with Welfare and Institutions Code notice requirements. The petition also challenged the pilot “cite-in” program pursuant to which the citation had been issued.
The petition was heard and denied on December 20, 1996. The trial court found that the pilot “cite-in” program was more successful than utilizing the “mail notice” required under section 660: More minors were appearing in response to the citations and they were appearing at an earlier stage. It concluded that the “cite-in” program was a valid attempt to speed up the system and rehabilitate juveniles. However, it requested that the program be reviewed by “the appellate courts as to the propriety and legality of [the ‘cite-in’] program.”
Petitioner is currently subject to summary arrest based upon the arrest warrant.
Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus with this court. We issued a temporary stay of the proceedings and requested preliminary opposition. After review of the preliminary opposition, we deemed the petition as one seeking mandamus, issued an alternative writ of mandate, and continued the stay order.
Discussion
Petitioner contends that the “cite-in” procedure is illegal because it does not incorporate the notice requirements of sections 656, 658, 659 and 660, which provide for notice of initiation of section 602 juvenile proceedings.
Section 602 provides: “Any person who is under the age of 18 years when he violates any law of this state or of the United States or any ordinance of any city or county of this state defining crime other than an ordinance establishing a curfew based solely on age, is within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court, which may adjudge such person to be a ward of the court.” Section 650, subdivision (c) provides: “Juvenile court proceedings to declare a minor a ward of the court pursuant to Section 602 are commenced by the filing of a petition by the prosecuting attorney.”
Section 656 delineates the contents of the petition. As pertinent, the section states: “A petition to commence proceedings in the juvenile court to declare a minor a ward of the court shall be verified and shall contain all of the following: HO (a) The name of the court to which it is addressed. HD (b) The title of the proceeding. [