In re Darryl T

81 Cal. App. 3d 874, 146 Cal. Rptr. 771 (1978)

From our private database of 46,000+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

In re Darryl T

California Court of Appeal
81 Cal. App. 3d 874, 146 Cal. Rptr. 771 (1978)

Facts

A probation officer representing the interests of the State of California (plaintiff) filed a wardship petition, known as a delinquency petition in other jurisdictions, alleging that Darryl T. (defendant), a 17-year-old, had committed a series of purse snatchings and threatened some of his victims with a knife. Darryl admitted to some of the allegations, and the court found that Darryl was a ward of the court, elsewhere known as a juvenile delinquent. A short time later, the court held a disposition hearing to determine where to place Darryl. One placement under consideration was the state juvenile prison, where juveniles were in custody 24 hours per day. At the disposition hearing, the probation officer testified that he did not seek a psychiatric evaluation for Darryl. The officer also testified that Darryl was unlikely to commit more delinquent acts. Nevertheless, the probation officer recommended Darryl’s commitment to the state juvenile prison because of the gravity of Darryl’s delinquent acts. Darryl introduced evidence that he had never had any trouble with the law until he started snatching purses, and his grades and behavior in school were outstanding. The court did not ascertain the cause for Darryl’s drastic change in behavior and disregarded the suggestion that Darryl should receive a psychiatric evaluation. Without citing evidence, the court opined that Darryl probably committed the purse snatchings because he knew the juvenile court was lenient and would not punish him. The court concluded that Darryl should be punished because of the gravity of his acts and committed Darryl to the state juvenile prison. Darryl appealed the commitment order, arguing that the court should have considered other placements and that commitment to state juvenile prison should be a court’s last resort.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Jefferson, J.)

Concurrence (Kingsley, J.)

Concurrence/Dissent (Hupp, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 742,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 742,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,000 briefs, keyed to 986 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 742,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,000 briefs - keyed to 986 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership