Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING. Petition for Writ of Mandate. Irma J. Brown, Judge., Super. Ct. No. YJ35114
Center for Juvenile Law and Policy, Maureen Pacheco and Jamie Chon for Petitioner.
No appearance on behalf of Respondent.
Steve Cooley, District Attorney, Irene Wakabayshi and Roberta Sanchez, Deputy District Attorneys for Real Party in Interest.
TURNER, P. J.
Spencer S., the minor in a delinquency proceeding, challenges the respondent court’s March 25, 2011 denial of his rehearing application. On February 7, 2011, the minor was found competent by a referee. On February 10, 2011, the minor filed a rehearing application challenging the competency finding. On February 15, 2011, the minor filed a request for preparation of a reporter’s transcript. On February 16, 2011, a juvenile court judge ordered preparation of a reporter’s transcript pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 677. The juvenile court judge did not find there was good cause to extend the time to act on the rehearing application. On March 10, 2011, the minor requested rehearing be granted by operation of law. On March 25, 2011, the rehearing application hearing was denied. Given the minor’s clear right to a rehearing, this is a proper case for us to issue a peremptory writ in the first instance. (Lewis v. Superior Court (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1232, 1240-1241; Alexander v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 1218, 1222-1223; overruled on a different point in Hassan v. Mercy American River Hosp. (2003) 31 Cal.4th 709, 724, fn. 4.) We agree with the minor that the failure to deny the rehearing petition within 20 days of its February 10, 2011 filing, or for a good cause finding to be made, required it be granted by operation of law. (§ 252; In re Danny T. (1978) 22 Cal.3d 918, 920-922.)
Future statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
The mandate petition filed April 13, 2011, is granted. Upon remittitur issuance, the rehearing petition filed February 10, 2011, is to be granted by operation of law and a juvenile court judge is to rehear the competency issue.
We concur: ARMSTRONG, J. KRIEGLER, J.