Alejandro A. v. Sup. Ct

Filed 5/3/06 Alejandro A. v. Sup. Ct. CA2/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Irma J. Brown, Judge, treated as a petition for writ of habeas corpus. Petition granted.

Jan B. Norman, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Petitioner.

No appearance for Respondent.

Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Assistant Attorney General, Herbert S. Tetef and Tita Nguyen, Deputy Attorneys General, for Real Party in Interest.

_________________________

In 2001, Alejandro A. was declared a ward of the juvenile court, pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602,[1] after he admitted having committed a second degree robbery (Pen. Code, § 211). In 2004, Alejandro made a motion to vacate the judgment sustaining this juvenile petition. The juvenile court denied the motion and Alejandro now appeals.

Construing the appeal as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, we conclude the juvenile court should determine whether Alejandro was incompetent in 2001 when he admitted the robbery. Therefore, we will issue a writ of habeas corpus directing the juvenile court to make a retrospective determination of competency.

BACKGROUND

On August 24, 2001, a section 602 petition was filed alleging 16-year-old Alejandro A. had committed robbery and grand theft. According to the probation officer's detention report, Alejandro forced the 11-year-old victim â€