Resendiz

Resendiz v. Superior Court

Good Law
107 Cal. Rptr. 2d 62·89 Cal. App. 4th 1
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 8, 2001D036738California11,509 words

Opinion

Opinion

Paul J. Pfingst, District Attorney, Gregory Thompson, Assistant District Attorney, Thomas F. McArdle and Anthony Lovett, Deputy District Attorneys, for Real Party in Interest.

McDONALD, J.

At the March 7, 2000, California general election the voters approved Proposition 21, the Gang Violence and Juvenile Crime Prevention Initiative (Proposition 21). Section 26 of Proposition 21, which became effective the day after the election, amended Welfare and Institutions Code section 707. [1] The amendment replaced the former section 707, subdivision (d) in its entirety with a new provision that permits the prosecuting authority, in its discretion, to file certain criminal accusations against juveniles in either the adult criminal court or the juvenile court. As a result, Proposition 21 permits the prosecuting authority to determine in its discretion not only whether a crime should be charged, what crime should be charged and who should be charged, but also which of two legislatively authorized sentencing schemes the court may use to impose sentence if the charges are found true. We conclude that by placing within the discretion of the prosecuting authority the determination of which of…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.