United States v. David H., Juvenile

Good Law
29 F.3d 489·94 Daily Journal DAR 9692·1994 WL 321753·1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 16751·94 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5288
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJuly 8, 199493-50395California3,203 words

Opinion

Opinion

The United States filed an information under § 5032 of the Federal Juvenile Delinquency Act charging David H. with committing armed bank robbery when he was seventeen, and moved to transfer David H. to adult status for criminal prosecution. Section 5032 required such a transfer if (1) the act charged was committed after the juvenile’s sixteenth birthday, (2) the act would have been a felony involving the use of violence if committed by an adult, and (3) the juvenile had previously been found guilty of such an offense. To satisfy the last requirement, the government demonstrated that David H. was previously adjudicated a juvenile delinquent in state court after he pled guilty to committing robbery in violation of California Penal Code § 211.

The district court denied the motion to transfer David H. to adult status because: (1) the mandatory transfer provision is unconstitutionally vague; and (2) the conduct involved in David H.’s prior state court juvenile delinquency adjudication was not sufficiently egregious to require transfer of the charged offenses to the district court for prosecution. We reverse and remand.

I

The void-for-vagueness doctrine is probably inapplicable to…

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.