In re Ivan C.

Filed 2/26/08 In re Ivan C. CA4/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for
publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication
or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
In re IVAN C., a Person Coming Under the
Juvenile Court Law.
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
IVAN C.,
Defendant and Appellant.
D050831
(Super. Ct. No. JJL23682)
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Imperial County, Poli Flores, Jr.,
Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.) Affirmed.
Seventeen-year-old Ivan C. entered a negotiated admission to one count of
transporting illegal aliens in the United States (8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii)). The
juvenile court declared Ivan a ward (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602), and placed him on
probation, conditioned on him spending 69 days in juvenile hall.

-- 1 of 7 --

2
FACTS
On February 17, 2006, a border patrol agent observed Ivan sitting alone on the
trunk of an older sedan in a rest area near the Gray's Well exit of Interstate 8; the area is
known as a "staging area" for illegal alien smuggling. The agent did not see anyone
inside the car. The agent left and later returned to the rest area as Ivan was driving the
automobile away. The agent followed Ivan's automobile along Interstate 8. At one point,
the agent passed Ivan's car and saw a passenger in the vehicle. The agent activated the
lights and sirens on his patrol car and alerted other officers of the situation. After Ivan
did not pull the car to the side of the road, agents used a Controlled Tire Deflation Device
to flatten the tires of Ivan's vehicle and force it to stop. The agents found four illegal
aliens in Ivan's car. Ivan said he was paid a fee of $100 per person for transporting these
individuals.
DISCUSSION
Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief setting forth evidence in the superior
court. Counsel presents no argument for reversal, but asks this court to review the record
for error as mandated by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Pursuant to Anders v.
California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, counsel refers to as a possible, but not arguable, issue:
whether the juvenile court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate Ivan as a delinquent where the
delinquency petition was based solely on a violation of federal law.

-- 2 of 7 --

3
Because this issue is before our Supreme Court,1 we find the following discussion
is in order. Generally, state courts may assume subject matter jurisdiction over a federal
cause of action absent a provision by Congress to the contrary or "disabling
incompatibility between the federal claim and state[]court . . . ." (Gulf Offshore Co. v.
Mobil Oil Corp. (1981) 453 U.S. 473, 477.) In considering the propriety of state court
jurisdiction over any particular federal claim, we begin with the strong presumption that
state courts enjoy concurrent jurisdiction. (Id. at p. 478.) It is presumed Congress
ordinarily does not intend to displace existing state authority. (Tafflin v. Levitt (1990)
493 U.S. 455, 466.) "To give federal courts exclusive jurisdiction over a federal cause of
action, Congress must, in an exercise of its powers under the Supremacy Clause,
affirmatively divest state courts of their presumptively concurrent jurisdiction." (Yellow
Freight System, Inc. v. Donnelly (1990) 494 U.S. 820, 823.) Congress may confine
jurisdiction to the federal courts either explicitly or impliedly; the presumption can be
rebutted by an explicit statutory directive or an "unmistakable implication from
legislative history." (Gulf Offshore Co. v. Mobil Oil Corp., supra, 453 U.S. at p. 478.) It
can also be rebutted "by a clear incompatibility between state-court jurisdiction and
federal interests." (Ibid.)
1 The issue of juvenile court jurisdiction in such cases is currently pending in our
Supreme Court in In re Jose C. (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 1115, review granted January 16,
2008, S158043. Appellant's counsel filed her brief before the Supreme Court granted
review on this issue.

-- 3 of 7 --

4
We acknowledge that title 18 United States Code2 section 3231 provides: "The
district courts of the United States shall have original jurisdiction, exclusive of the courts
of the States, of all offenses against the laws of the United States." It is well settled that
section 3231 provides federal courts with exclusive jurisdiction over federal criminal law
claims. (See Tennessee v. Davis (1879) 100 U.S. 257, 262.)
However, the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974, section
5031 et seq. (the Act), provides that a juvenile:
"shall not be proceeded against in any court of the United States
unless the Attorney General, after investigation, certifies to the
appropriate district court of the United States that (1) the juvenile
court or other appropriate court of a State does not have jurisdiction
or refuses to assume jurisdiction over said juvenile with respect to
such alleged act of juvenile delinquency, (2) the State does not have
available programs and services adequate for the needs of the
juveniles or (3) the offense charged is a crime of violence that is a
felony . . . and that there is a substantial Federal interest in the case
or the offense to warrant the exercise of Federal jurisdiction."
(§ 5032.)
Under the Act, Congress "revoked the district courts' preexisting, largely
unrestricted subject-matter jurisdiction over criminal prosecutions against juveniles," by
declaring that acts otherwise criminal, when committed by juveniles, generally become
noncriminal and merely "juvenile delinquen[t]" conduct. (United States v. Chambers
2 All further statutory references are to title 18 of the United States Code, unless
otherwise specified.

-- 4 of 7 --

5
(6th Cir. 1991) 944 F.2d 1253, 1258 (Chambers).)3 "Thus, a juvenile who has
committed what otherwise 'would have been a crime if committed by an adult,' [citation],
has not committed a criminal offense against the United States and is therefore not within
the criminal jurisdiction of the federal courts." (In re Sealed Case (D.C. Cir. 1997)
131 F.3d 208, 211, italics omitted.) In section 5032, Congress "partially restored" to
federal courts jurisdiction to hear criminal matters against juveniles if, and only if, the
certification requirement is met. (Chambers, supra, 944 F.2d at p. 1259; In re Sealed
Case, supra, 131 F.3d at p. 211.)
The certification by the Attorney General, as outlined is section 5032, is a
jurisdictional requirement for a federal court to hear a criminal case involving a juvenile.
(Chambers, supra, 944 F.2d at p. 1259; In re Sealed Case, supra, 131 F.3d at p. 211.)
Without proper certification, a criminal case involving a juvenile cannot be heard by a
federal court. No such certification was submitted in this case. Therefore, the juvenile
court had subject matter jurisdiction and properly heard Ivan's case under the federal
jurisdictional rules relating to the federal juvenile justice system.
This analysis is also in keeping with the "elementary tenet of statutory
construction that 'where there is no clear intention otherwise, a specific statute will not be
controlled . . . by a general one . . . .' " (Guidry v. Sheet Metal Workers Nat. Pension
Fund (1990) 493 U.S. 365, 375; see also Mitchell v. Superior Court (1989) 49 Cal.3d
3 In section 5031, " 'juvenile delinquency' " is defined as a "violation of a law of the
United States committed by a person prior to his eighteenth birthday which would have
been a crime if committed by an adult . . . ."

-- 5 of 7 --

6
1230, 1250). Section 5032, which carves out an exception for federal criminal cases
involving juveniles, is the specific statute. For purposes of federal juvenile delinquency
claims (see fn. 3, ante), section 5032 has replaced section 3231 as the applicable subject
matter jurisdictional statute. (Chambers, supra, 944 F.2d at pp. 1257-1259.) In other
words, section 3231 does not apply to juvenile proceedings.
Congress's enactment of section 5032 "reflects a legislative perception that
accused juvenile offenders generally belong in the hands of state authorities, absent
unusual circumstances and/or special procedural protections." (Chambers, supra,
944 F.2d at p. 1258.) "In short, Congress 'recognized that the federal court system is at
best ill equipped to meet the needs of juvenile offenders. Deference to the state courts
should always be observed except in the most severe of cases.' " (Ibid.)
The Act's distinction between adult crimes and "juvenile delinquency" (see fn. 3,
ante) is similar to California's treatment of juvenile offenders. Juvenile delinquency
proceedings in this state are largely considered civil in nature (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 203)
and principally concerned with the status of the minor. (In re Kasaundra D. (2004)
121 Cal.App.4th 533, 539-540.) Further, under California law, juvenile courts have
jurisdiction over a minor who violates federal law. Welfare and Institutions Code section
602, subdivision (a) states, "any person who is under age of 18 years when he or she
violates any law of this state or of the United States . . . is within the jurisdiction of the
juvenile court, which may adjudge such person to be a ward of the court." (Italics
added.)

-- 6 of 7 --

7
We granted Ivan permission to file a brief on his own behalf. He has not
responded.
A review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and
Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738, including the possible issue referred to by
appellant's counsel, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issue. Competent
counsel has represented Ivan on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The order of wardship is affirmed.
HALLER, J.
WE CONCUR:
HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.
NARES, J.

-- 7 of 7 --