Bravo

Bravo v. Superior Court

Good Law
108 Cal. Rptr. 2d 514·90 Cal. App. 4th 88
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 12, 2001F037557California6,473 words

Opinion

Opinion

Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, David P. Druliner, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Stan Cross and Susan J. Orton, Deputy Attorneys General, for Real Party in Interest.

On March 7, 2000, the voters of California approved Proposition 21, known as the "Gang Violence and Juvenile Crime Prevention Initiative" (Proposition 21). Section 26 of Proposition 21 is the subject of this writ proceeding. Section 26, codified as section 707 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, [1] replaced the former section 707, subdivision (d) in its entirety. The new section 707, subdivision (d) provides the prosecuting attorney with discretion to file certain criminal charges against youths in adult criminal court (adult court) or in the juvenile court. Accordingly, Proposition 21 provides the prosecuting attorney with the discretion to file charges in adult court and thereby limits the trial court's discretion in sentencing to the sentencing scheme available to adults. Petitioner raises various challenges to the constitutionality of Proposition 21 as set forth below.

This writ proceeding arises out of a criminal prosecution in Kern…

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.