Steven R. v. Super. Ct.
Annotate this CasePetitioner Steven R., a minor, admitted a concealed weapon allegation in a section 602 petition filed in San Francisco County Juvenile Court. The court then transferred the case to Sacramento County Juvenile Court for disposition. (section 750). The Sacramento County District Attorney filed a section 777 notice of probation violation based on the same conduct alleged in the San Francisco petition and moved to dismiss the petition (section 782) in order to make Steven eligible for commitment to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Division of Juvenile Facilities (DJF) under the terms of section 733, subdivision (c). This case was about the application of an unambiguous provision of the Welfare & Institutions Code to the dismissal of the section 602 petition following the transfer of the petition from the juvenile court in one county to the juvenile court in another county for disposition. Steven petitioned the Court of Appeal asking for a writ of mandate directing the trial court to: (1) vacate its order granting the motion to dismiss the petition; and (2) dismiss the notice of probation violation. The Court denied the petition summarily. Thereafter, the California Supreme Court granted review and transferred the matter back to the Court of Appeal with directions to vacate its order and to issue an order to show cause why relief should not be granted to Steven. Having complied with the Supreme Court’s order and having considered the parties’ arguments, the Court of Appeal concluded that the juvenile court exceeded its jurisdiction in dismissing the petition because section 782, which authorized dismissal of a section 602 petition, specifically stated that “[a] judge of the juvenile court in which a petition was filed may dismiss the petition.” Because the petition in question was not filed in Sacramento, the juvenile court was without jurisdiction to dismiss it. Therefore, the Court granted Steven’s petition and directed issuance of a writ of mandate.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.