Guillory

Guillory v. Superior Court

Good Law
100 Cal. App. 4th 750·123 Cal. Rptr. 2d 173
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaOctober 23, 2002A096442California10,216 words

Opinion

Opinion

Gary T. Yancey, District Attorney, L. Douglas Pipes, Senior Deputy District Attorney, Counsel for Real Party in Interest.

Proposition 21, also known as the Gang Violence and Juvenile Crime Prevention Act, was passed by the voters on March 7, 2000. Among other things, Proposition 21 requires that juveniles accused of committing certain types of murder or specified sex offenses shall be prosecuted in adult court. [1] (Welf. & Inst.Code, § 602, subd. (b).) This writ proceeding raises the question whether, after the passage of Proposition 21, a juvenile may be prosecuted in adult court by grand jury indictment.

In her petition for writ of mandate, petitioner Shannon Guillory (Guillory) focuses on language in the relevant statute amended by Proposition 21, Welfare and Institutions Code [2] section 602, subdivision (b)(1), requiring that the prosecutor allege certain special circumstances in cases filed in adult court against juveniles. According to Guillory, the prosecution of juveniles cannot proceed by indictment under this statute, because an indictment contains the allegations of the grand jury, not the prosecutor. However, we find the pertinent statutory language…

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.