*1 Aug. 30, [L.A. 1979.] No. 30981. P.,
In re KATHY a Person Under the Juvenile Court Law. Coming PEOPLE, THE Plaintiff and Respondent, P.,
KATHY Defendant and Appellant.
Counsel J. Friedman, Charles Katz Bell, J. Gindi and
Katz, M. Elie & Irwin Hoyt for Defendant Appellant. Winkler, Assistant General, R. Chief Jack
Evelle J. Attorney Younger, General, Norman Moore, General, Assistant S. Clark Attorney Attorney General, C. Attorneys H. Sokolow Deputy Preminger, Roy Plaintiff and Respondent.
Opinion NEWMAN, J. The main issue in this case is whether the officer, a traffic infraction of a hearing juvenile charge Code section 255 et violates the under Welfare and Institutions seq.,1 limitation of such officers’ functions “subordinate constitutional 1All references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise (which indicated. The cited sections until 1976 were 561 et seq.) provide pertinent part: court, Section 255: “The of the or in counties more one judge juvenile than having the of of court the the court or the senior if judge juvenile judge presiding judge there no one or of is more suitable who presiding judge, may persons experience, appoint of the or a may justices of officer judges municipal justice officers, or assistant or a serve as traffic officers on full-time deputy probation hearing A basis. part-time officer shall serve at hearing pleasure appointing judge court, Section 256: to the orders of the “Subject a traffic officer hear and of and all cases wherein minor under dispose any of 18 as of the years age date of offense alleged with violation of the Vehicle Code not declared charged to be a ....’’ felony minor, Section 257: “With the of consent before a traffic or a before a referee or a court wherein such minor with such charged traffic offense be conducted an exact upon legible copy written notice given pursuant 40500) Article 2 with Section (commencing Chapter 17 or Division Section 41103 Vehicle Code in lieu of a ... petition provided 650) in Article 16 with Section (commencing this chapter.” “(a) Section 258: conducted accordance with Section Upon an upon *5 admission the minor of the a by commission of traffic violation or a charged, upon finding violation, referee, that the minor did in fact such commit traffic or judge, the traffic officer do of the hearing any following: action; “(1) the minor and Reprimand take no farther “(2) Direct the to a probation officer file for in Article 8 petition provided 325) with Section of this or (commencing chapter; “(3) Make or all of the orders: any following “(i) the That of the minor be or restricted as driving privileges suspended provided or, the Vehicle Code Section 13203 of the Vehicle Code or other notwithstanding any law, of when the Vehicle Code does not for the or provision provide suspension that, order, restriction of in addition to other the driving privileges, driving privileges of the minor be or restricted for a of not to suspended exceed period days. “(ii) That the minor attend school over a traffic not to exceed 60 period days. sum, “(iii) That the minor fund of the a not to exceed pay general county fifty ($50), dollars and to the Driver Assessment Fund a assessment Penalty Training penalty in the amount Section 42050 of the Vehicle Code for not provided offenses to relating referee, or or offenses parking registration by or traffic pedestrians. Any judge, hearing officer waive a assessment if the amount the minor to the penalty is ordered to pay fund of ($10). the is less than ten dollars general county “(iv) That the officer undertake a of the minor for a program supervision not to exceed six months. period “(v) That the minor evidence that the vehicle or its has produce satisfactory equipment been made to conform with the of the Vehicle Code to Section requirements pursuant of the Vehicle Code. “(vi) That minor work in a or or recreational or city park facility county regional for not to exceed hours over a not to exceed 30 other park times period during days, than his hours of school or When to work attendance the order is made a employment. officer, or a referee traffic it shall be of the court. hearing approved by judge juvenile referee, “(b) The or traffic officer shall retain of the case judge, hearing jurisdiction until all orders made under this section have been with.” fully complied 260: “A Section officer shall furnish a written of his promptly report Const., art. 22 or 2) duties” the minor (Cal. deprives equal Also at issue is due whether the record must show process. protection to the abbreviated 257) the minor consented (§ procedure counsel. waived representation was cited for Vehicle Code section 21804
Appellant Kathy violating (failure when At her yield right-of-way entering highway). appearance in the court traffic division court she declined to juvenile superior and a date was set. On that date a officer plead guilty, heard officer and testimony citing police argument by Kathy’s father, offense, determined she had committed a “10/5” imposed $5 fine ($10 assessment). Her was plus penalty request rehearing denied court and she (§ 262), the denial juvenile appeals to hear authorized 1. Is constitutionally juvenile cases? and decide contested as traffic Section 255 authorizes appoint judges need who suitable officers “one more experience” persons was not The officer in this case judge. judges. and decide officers hear charges Section 256 the hearing permits be a Vehicle Code not declared a minor of violation of the “any against on a be held If the minor consents copy felony.”3 hearing may shall court. The clerk of and orders to the clerk findings of Motor to the Department of such and orders findings transmit an abstract promptly *6 Vehicles.” a traffic hearing all orders of of Section 261: “Subject provisions Section shall be effective.” immediately cause, or for good or his or parent guardian of the minor motion Section 262: “Upon of a order motion, or modify any set aside a the courEmay judge juvenile his own upon or officer, If the minor parent a rehearing. or or himself conduct order may traffic hearing or has the order applied aside or modify a the set judge made motion that has guardian or ordered or order or modified the not set aside and the has for a rehearing, judge order, the motion or the date of the 10 after within days rehearing conducted of such period.” as of the be deemed denied expiration shall application for the by VI, provide appointment 22 “The Legislature section provides: 2Article subordinate judicial perform such commissioners of officers of record trial courts duties.” ordinances, Harbors of local traffic decide violations also hear and 3The officers section Penal Code and provisions, Code registration and Navigation equipment land), or and Code section Highway on Streets vehicle another’s (m) (driving subdivision 27176 traffic and section (disobeying use highway) warning against 126 (disobeying too under district). charges hear nonfelony They may and highway posted bridge sign the Fish and 259) (§ the of such disposition and a governs Game separate cases. 97 citation, The minor or in lieu of a (§ 257.) juvenile petition. of the officer’s the modification rehearing parent may request order; within 10 of the order’s date is deemed days request granted denied. re see In (1966) Conley Cal.Rptr. Cal.App.2d [53 In re F.E. 321]; (1977) 547].) Cal.App.3d 24, 1977, this case the was held on and the February request for dated denied March was on 1. There rehearing judge April was no available to the were the notice to transcript; judge appear, forms (akin minutes), officer’s disposition notes of the and the memo of a testimony, summarizing juvenile court supervisor. contends she was entitled to because the
Kathy rehearing judge who denied her did not have a transcript request proceedings She rule before officer.4 relies cases that wardship review availability meaningful required prevent court referee’s contested order that a minor a ward of juvenile adjudges the court for criminal conduct from (§ 602) limitation on the violating function to Const., referee’s “subordinate duties” (Cal. art. 22; In re M. Cal.3d 727 (3) Denial of an
406]).
for
of such an
application
judicial rehearing
order must be based on review of a
before
transcript
proceeding
decision;
the referee so that the
arrive at an
judge may
independent
otherwise the constitutional limitation
requires
rehearing
granted
as of
re
Damon C.
P.2d 676].)5 the referee’s
When serious misconduct is charged, to uncontest- to make a final determination extends subjudicial authority before juvenile judges 4 Section for transcripts hearings providing referees, officers. Also before traffic hearing does not to hearings apply Court, 1301(a)) and the (Cal. rule are the court rules Rules of inapplicable Proc., (Code court actions Civ. reporting superior provisions time also to the referee’s decision in such cases subject 5 Denial of rehearing review with the legislative of meaningful to harmonize the requirement constraints: *7 252, that, to section for according a request rehearing of expediting dispositions, policy (or within a maximum 20 after its receipt denied” if not within days “deemed granted 22 (In (1978) re T. extensions) as of Danny is instead right. 45 with time granted days 916, were held to considerations 712].) If constitutional 918 587 P.2d Cal.3d Cal.Rptr. [150 in this limit within the shorter time applicable as of on inaction a rehearing right require the stated for 262), rehearing: period could obtain the minor practically always case order, deadline for and there is no after the 10 days request only acting we conclude that below time. Because or for extending the request provision submitting a subordinate duty, the traffic infraction was judicial officer’s adjudication do not arise. considerations those constitutional 98
ed or collateral matters but not to (In contested re adjudications. M., 727, 14 Cal.3d 735.) The in the case was adjudication present contested but dealt with a routine traffic infraction and resulted in issue, a small therefore, fine. The imposition only is whether the minor nature of the offense converts its contested into a “subordi nate” task. judicial
In 1976 the authorized to courts allow Legislature commis municipal sioners and traffic referees “have the same and exercise the jurisdiction same and duties as of the court with powers judges respect Code, 72190, infraction” (Gov. 72401, subd. (c)). §§ statute declares that the “are functions subordinate duties within the meaning Section 22 of Article VI of the California Constitution” ch. (Stats. That 2191). § declaration was sustained v. Lucas p. People 82 47 (1978) which affirmed 235], Cal.App.3d Cal.Rptr. judgments [147 that after trial found commissioners defendants by municipal guilty of traffic infractions Code, of Veh. (violations 22350 and 22450). §§ the “subordinate” nature of those Lucas took Upholding adjudications, into account that for are infractions than punishments markedly lighter s6 for other offense and that “the function of unique specialized trying infraction cases . . . could be ranked as ‘subordinate’ in relation properly of the other duties of a diversity complexity municipal (82 at judge.” Cal.App.3d p.
Given
nature,
their
volume of
infraction cases
at
high
(id.
fn.
p.
2)
necessitates
clearly
for their fair and
simplified procedures
efficient
In other contexts this
disposition.
court often has
recognized
of infraction cases
permissibly summary handling
them
by excepting
from rules
in misdemeanor cases
v.
required
(Mills
Court
Municipal
10
288, 302,
(1973)
fn. 13
329, 515 P.2d
Cal.Rptr.
[110
273] [“on
record” waiver of constitutional
rights
prerequisite
guilty plea];7
Gordon v. Justice Court
323, 326,
(1974)
fn. 2
71 A.L.R.3d
for trial of
[necessity
lawyer-judges
551]
offenses
confinement]),
minor
punishable
by permitting
charges
Code,
(Pen.
19c.)
6Infractions
Most are traffic
punishable by imprisonment.
§
760, 765,
violations
22 Cal.3d
Court
fn.
(Tracy Municipal
offense,
$50
$100
227]),
P.2d
fine of no more than
for the first
for the
punishable by
second,
Code,
42001),
(Veh.
$250
the third within one
attendance at
§
year
Code,
(Veh.
(See
(same
traffic school
Gov.
fines for infractions
ordinance;
(Cont.Ed.Bar
declared
Cal. Misdemeanor Procedure Benchbook
by city
rev.)
21.16,21.29).)
§§
149],
7But see
v. Miner
Cal.App.3d Supp.
holding
entered
in infraction cases.
Mills
personally
pleas
requirement
applicable
*8
v.
(1979)
Carlucci
to be tried without
prosecuting attorney (People
of
conviction
and
Cal.3d 249
590 P.2d 15]),
holding
[152
a more serious related
for
infraction not a bar
a traffic
prosecution
82, 557 P.2d
B.
Parallel aims led to enactment in as former 561-567 (now §§ 255-258, 260-262), §§ which would “provisions empower officer, traffic court, to make final in appointed by judgments all traffic cases those considered serious to warrant referral except enough court” (Governor’s Commission Juvenile Special Study Justice, I—Recommendations in California’s Juvenile part Changes Court Law (1960) 22).8 The minor here that the p. argues officers’ nonetheless do not as subordinate duties powers qualify because the officers’ not includes infractions but also jurisdiction only certain misdemeanors, violation of the Vehicle Code not including “any declared to abe Because she (§ 256). was with an felony” charged only infraction, however, she challenge authority officers misdemeanor Ins. hypothetical (Franklin Co. proceedings. Life v. State Board 63 Cal.2d Equalization 477]; 212 Cal. P. Perry A.L.R. 1331].) that she was different and contends also more
She severe exposed an invoked adult for the could be same than offense. against penalties wherein of cases officers find minors Possible dispositions guilty II of the A draft of the cited sections. Part report, for the commission’s 8See 59-60 pages California, facts Justice in explains prompting of Juvenile of the Administration Study have 29): courts exclusive (at currently jurisdiction “Juvenile the recommendation p. those involved of 18 including offenders under age over all juvenile than created because more has been monumental problem violations. A processing result, courts have 100,000 to minors. As a citations are issued annually cases; otherwise methods for such alternative adjudicating forced to various been adopt calendars.” would overwhelm juvenile traffic cases *9 1, Several of them ante). are 258 (fn. traffic violations listed 258, subd. infractions: (§ also are available for adult traffic reprimand Code, 258, Veh. subd. (a)(3)(ii); attendance at traffic school (a)(1)), (§ 258, $50 Veh. (a)(3)(iii); fine assessment subd. 42005), (§ § plus penalty Code, 258, of vehicle defect subd. (§ of correction 42001), proof Code, Veh. (a)(3)(v); infractions, unavailable for adult remaining dispositions, 258,
restrictions on for to 30 subd. (§ driving (a)(3)(i)), up days a officer for to six months (§ subd. supervision by probation up or work in a (a)(3)(iv)), or recreational for to 25 hours in a park facility up other than school or hours 30-day period (§ subd. during job Those (a)(3)(vi)). do not make dispositional provisions officer’s of the minor’s case more than a adjudication subordinate judicial A court because of duty. certain infrac may suspend driving privileges adults; tions Code, 13200, 22348 et by (Veh. To e.g., §§ speeding seq.). authorize for other traffic infractions minors suspension is not but reflects the with which the disparate has precautions Legislature surrounded the of drivers’ licenses to under 18 granting (Veh. persons 12507, 12512-12516, §§ 12650-12653). for an order that the
Similarly, providing “undertake probation a for six months subd. program supervision” (§ up (a)(3)(iv)) of section 654 and seems to adopts pre-1976 wording contemplate but an the officer to involuntary obtain the supervision attempt by “consent of the minor and the minor’s (§ 654) parent” supervision. an order to work in a or recreational must be
Finally, park facility court” subd. (§ If “approved by (a)(3)(vi)). judge based on before the converts the order from judge approval M., that of the officer to that of the (See judge. supra, Edgar we event would not say power require nonschool, of work in hours a recreational nonjob setting unlawfully the “subordinate” nature of the officer’s of an expands infraction.9 we conclude that the officers’
Thus functions are subordinate Further, duties. between the functions of those similarity direction to a officer to file a 9Disposition by petition dependency (a)(2)) results issues resolution in the presenting subd. simply M., under a referee who duties 14 Cal.3d performs judicial and its progeny. *10 in cases and of court commissioners officers infraction juvenile municipal in cases one of the two on and referees adult infraction refutes arguments which the minor of here claims denial equal protection.
Her other concerns in differences argument qualifications referees who hear adult cases must office. Commissioners and generally admitted the bar.10 as have been Though persons appointed include lower court are officers they may judges, required or such as officers to be of suitable “persons experience” only that or officers. The concede (§ 255.) assistant People deputy probation the not have officer who case been the present may adjudicated of the bar. member commissioners, referees,
The differences in
and
qualifications
officers
the
characteristics
seem
and needs
by
justified
differing
adult and
when
offenders.
adults
Though
juveniles
operating
duties,
have the
those
vehicles
same
who breach
duties
juveniles
discrete social and
programs
require
addressing
psychological problems
that
the
concluded
adolescence. Thus
apparently
Legislature
accompany
that
officers
have a broader
should
range
more
which to
into
minors
through
dispositions
guide
responsible
toward
could
attitudes
reasonably
driving privilege.
Legislature
that,
infractions,
as to
assume
goals
juvenile justice system
with
better served
familiar
by personnel
special problems confronting
in
who
not have that
contrast to
juveniles,
attorneys
familiarity.11
Juvenile traffic
Does the use
due
of nonattorneys deny
process?
issues,
at
infraction cases
can result most
involve
light
complex
rarely
that caused
therefore lack the characteristics
penalties,
in Gordon
held violative of due
by nonattorney
process
judges
Court,
Justice
justice
289].)
Eu v. Chacon
here
strict
scrutiny
legislative
11The minor
suffered no loss
liberty requiring
under
v. Olivas
classification
stated
principles
55,
minor waived counsel and consented to adjudication? informal father, was before her not Kathy represented counsel. does claim She that a should have been lawyer appointed but seeks reversal because the record fails to disclose whether she was advised of her to be retained counsel. She does not right represented by assert was not she so advised that she was from prevented *11 counsel conduct by ignorance by retaining misleading officer. She relies on the record’s silence. simply she had to retained at counsel her own
Unquestionably right Due assures that even when a expense. process right proceeding wholly civil. v. Small Claims 8 661 (Brooks (1973) Court Cal.3d Cal.Rptr. [105 785, 668, 504 1249]; P.2d Mendoza v. Small Claims Court 49 Cal.2d (1958) 673 however, P.2d No rule of 9].) statute or that requires, [321 Court, minor be advised of that Cal. Rules of rule (See 1301(a) right. court rules to before traffic (juvenile inapplicable proceedings officers).)
Statutes under section 650 et governing wardship proceedings seq. that the minor be be advised to require represented right 658-659, to 700.) counsel. Those statutes do not (§§ apply present conducted to the abbreviated proceeding, pursuant procedure section 257.12 That “in of” a lieu procedure permitted wardship but of the minor” consent 257). petition only “[w]ith case, this where the record does not show whether Kathy consented to under 257 or was advised of her to right counsel, have we will that official has been respect presumption duty Code, (Evid. Also, as regularly § she performed appellant has not met her burden of error an record. (See showing adequate Calhoun v. 70, Hildebrandt 230 72 (1964) 690]; Cal.App.2d Cal.Rptr. [40 In re Salazar 205 (1962) 102 She 770].) Cal.App.2d Cal.Rptr. [22 that without she could counsel not be to make the complains expected who, record. Yet she is counsel on necessary represented by appeal were not did have available the means though proceedings reported, to the record or settled statement. Cal. Rules of perfect (See by agreed Court, 6, 7, 275, rules v. Goudeau 281 12(a); 8 (1970) Cal.App.3d 424].) (Cf. need encumber or not rights materially delay proceeding. 12Advising Court, 288, 307; Code, (c); subd. v. Cal.3d Veh. Mills Municipal supra, § Assn., Manuel Juvenile Traffic Cts. Recommended Guideline Juvenile Cal. 13-14, 16.) Traffic Ct. (1978) pp. that, the rule in criminal waiver She also invokes right appeals, inferred from a silent record. re (In counsel court-appointed Lopez in all counsel is
257].) right court-appointed guaranteed I, 15; Const., art. Pen. misdemeanor (Cal. § felony proceedings. Code, v. Court Tracy Municipal Court, 10 Cal.3d P.2d Mills 227]; Municipal supra, Yet 301.) in infraction is denied statute. proceedings right 19c defendants); for incarcerated see
(Pen. exception (stating Court, Mills v. 10 Cal.3d Municipal that, counsel,
We rule absent entitlement to due court-appointed does not advice of the retained counsel process require right appear by when there are no circumstances omission the advice special making *12 v. unreasonable. Prince (People Cal.App.3d Supp. Such 296].)13 advice in connection with the may necessary
consent for a section 257 traffic to avoid misunder required proceeding of the of effects That standing waiving plenary wardship proceeding. however, itself not reversal necessity, enough require simply because the record is silent on whether the advice was Cases in given. which a traffic that does not to court- juvenile charge carry right counsel is nonetheless serious warrant appointed sufficiently of Carlucci, to be rare. v. expense retaining lawyer likely (People Prince, v. supra, Cal.App.3d Supp. 19, 33.) in those rare cases is there a of the Only minor’s possibility failing to retain counsel because of the to do so. That ignorance right does not warrant from the rule that error possibility must be departure shown it, in the context party urging particularly and desirable in traffic infraction expeditiousness matters. necessary The contention that the was not finding guilt sufficiently supported the evidence is without merit. The order is affirmed. denying rehearing Clark, J., Richardson, Manuel, J.,
Tobriner, J., Mosk, J., J., and concurred. 13Prince, with of an adult in an infraction dealing rights “Such proceeding, suggests: embrace, circumstances’ would
‘special maxi example, imposition multiple mum ... or mental penalties proof gross physical, linguistic inability defendant himself or understand that he has the and the means to represent right (55 10.) counsel.” at fn. employ Cal.App.3d Supp. p.
BIRD, C. J. dissent. I respectfully VI,
Article section 22 of the California Constitution allows juvenile traffic officers to “subordinate duties.” In perform only judicial limitation, view of this constitutional a traffic make a final decision in a contested traffic infraction case. matters, or uncontested a subordinate
Except preliminary judicial officer’s must be to review before findings subject by judge they may become final. Vermont Investment (1973) 10 Cal.3d (Rooney Corp. 366-370 P.2d In re 297]; M. 732-736 406].) officer’s are deemed unless the have findings “advisory only,” parties stipulated However, that he act as a tem. (Id., 735.) at if the judge pro p. review, officer’s become final without his acts are findings judicial ,” “the acts the court itself . . . which is under effectively precluded article section 22. at it (Id., this must be p. appeal, if a determined officer is deciding preliminary uncontested matters whether his and orders become final findings without review.
A
officer in a
contested
infraction case
witnesses,
evidence,
hears the
of all the
resolves
testimony
weighs
*13
conflicts in the
and
or
withholds credence
testimony,
gives
particular
witnesses.
he
whether
determines
the minor is
of the
Ultimately,
“guilty”
Code,
offense. (See
affirmative,
Veh.
If
in the
13103.)
he finds
§
alleged
the minor
found to
is
have been “convicted” of a
and
“crime”
sentence is
Code,
Pen.
(Id.,
15.)
§
These are
acts and
imposed.
judicial
119,
duties.
5
127
Court
Cal.3d
(Esteybar v. Municipal
524,
This infirm for another reason. is statutory system constitutionally no made There is that a be proceedings requirement transcript ante, at fn. 4.) before the traffic officer. (See maj. p. opn., officer’s a written of the traffic Section requires report only more than a orders.” This be summary “findings nothing result, there no record or “data officer’s conclusions. As a is amply that of” for” “a from sufficient a form judge judgment independent M., 14 Cal.3d at who decided the case. re (In initially Edgar supra, Therefore, review” subordinate 736.) judicial “meaningful p. and order officer’s is impossible. findings further If a traffic officer’s
There a constitutional defect. minor, a determina- are in favor of order would a final findings However, VI, under article section 22 tion. subordinate officers M., at cannot make re (See judgments. final 732.) p. contend that article because The majority inapplicable involves a “routine traffic infraction” proceeding carrying “only fine.” (Ante, small Is the of minor’s deprivation liberty by atp. placing him six months “small fine?”3 subd. (§ (a)(3)(iv).) Is the or restriction of a minor’s (subd. suspension driving privileges or an order the minor to attend traffic school over a (a)(3)(i)) requiring of 60 an Is a fine (subd. sanction? (a)(3)(ii)) days up period insignificant $50 a $15 with assessment minor? subd. (a)(3)(iii); penalty a modification court for the minor superior 2Although apply within 10 denied not acted days his will be deemed if it is upon rehearing, application *14 262.) time If period the court allows simply the traffic officer’s orders. the officer’s final. lapse, findings is not that supervision” “contemplate[dj” 3The “involuntary majority suggest minor, not so serious for the this (Ante, 100.) Were the consequences statute. at p. (a)(3) of section 258 statute could be Subdivision overlooked. misinterpretation traffic officer to “order supervision,” authorizes the “program explicitly [ ]” 654, which the Section majority the minor or his parents guardian agree. whether an 654 applies their no to such order. Section has interpretation, application rely to the minor and his parents in which a officer recommends probation the situation However, when a acting be undertaken. such program guardian officer, 258 him to order such empowers programs section as a supervision. Veh. 42050.) A “fine bear as on an accused may heavily indigent as forced confinement.” v. U.S. (Mayer City Chicago 372, 380, L.Ed.2d 92 S.Ct. cases a 410].) traffic fine many “may constitute a real for . . . those very hardship obliged pay.” (People Carlucci It P.2d 15].) a minor unusual for to face insurance rates or the denial higher insurance of an result infraction conviction. These (Ibid.) altogether are not potential consequences insignificant.
This court has
focused on
nature
of the duties
consistently
to determine whether
are in
performed
fact “subordinate
they
judicial
duties”
under article
22.
(See,
v. Vermont
e.g., Rooney
Investment
362-363,
at
366, 370;
fn.
In re
Corp., supra,
pp.
M.,