People v. Nan P.

Good Law
1991 Cal. App. LEXIS 517·230 Cal. App. 3d 751·281 Cal. Rptr. 468·91 Daily Journal DAR 6238·91 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4012
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 24, 1991No. F013182California2,549 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Vartabedian, J.

Are juveniles similarly situated with adults, such that a minor is denied “equal protection” because juvenile proceedings under *753 Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 are not protected, unlike adult proceedings, by the misdemeanor refiling prohibition of Penal Code section 1387? In the published portion of our opinion, we analyze this question and come to the conclusion that the answer is no. Appellant Nan P. additionally contends the juvenile court lacked jurisdiction due to defective notice, and the court’s finding of vehicular manslaughter was not supported by sufficient evidence. These claims, too, are rejected in our unpublished discussion.

Facts and Proceedings

During the afternoon of January 27, 1989, appellant, then a minor, was driving his pickup truck south on Clovis Avenue. He was accompanied by two friends, Marmorakoth S. and Soulotsa V. Appellant’s friends testified that he was attempting to change lanes. He sped up to about 45 miles per hour, the car went out of control, and the accident occurred.

John Alan Repherford, an off-duty sergeant for the Fresno County Sheriff’s Department, was stopped at the red light in the left-turn lane on southbound…

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.