In re Marcos H.

Filed 2/11/08 In re Marcos H. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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 MARCOS H., a Person Coming
Under the Juvenile Court Law.
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
MARCOS H.,
Defendant and Appellant.
D050829
(Super. Ct. No. JJL23673)
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Imperial County, Poli Flores,
Temporary Judge. Affirmed.
Seventeen-year-old Marcos H. entered a negotiated admission to one count of
smuggling aliens into the country (8 U.S.C § 1324(a)(2)(B)(iii)). The juvenile court
declared Marcos a ward (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602), and placed him on probation,

-- 1 of 8 --

2
conditioned on him spending 73 days in juvenile hall. Marcos appeals, contending the
juvenile court did not have jurisdiction because the petition filed against him alleged he
violated a federal statute. We affirm.
FACTS
On February 11, 20007, Marcos, a resident of Mexico, drove a van with 21
passengers from Mexico into the United States. Marcos was aware the passengers did
not have documentation to enter the United States legally. Marcos was arrested by U.S.
Border Patrol officers in Calexico.
Marcos's attorney filed a motion to dismiss the petition on the ground that the
juvenile court lacked jurisdiction. The court denied the motion. Subsequently, Marcos
entered a negotiated admission that he illegally brought aliens into the United States
without immediately presenting them to an appropriate immigration officer in violation
of title 8 United States Code section 1324(a)(2)(B)(iii). The prosecutor agreed to dismiss
a second allegation that Marcos had resisted a federal officer. (18 U.S.C. § 111.)
On April 26, the court declared Marcos a ward of the court and placed him on
probation. The court ordered Marcos to spend 73 days in juvenile hall, with credit for 73
days served.
DISCUSSION
Marcos contends the federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction to hear violations
of federal immigration law, and, therefore, the juvenile court erred by denying his motion

-- 2 of 8 --

3
to dismiss, which was based on the court's lack of jurisdiction. The contention is without
merit.1
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 We note the issue is currently pending in our Supreme Court in In re Jose C.
(2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 1115, review granted January 16, 2008 (S158043).

-- 3 of 8 --

4
Marcos's argument is based on title 18 United States Code section 3231, which
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."2 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, sections
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 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 8 --

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 Marcos'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 1230,
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 8 --

6
1250). The specific statute is 18 United States Code section 5032, which carves out an
exception for federal criminal cases involving juveniles. 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' 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 states "any person who is under the 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.)
But for three cases, the authority cited by Marcos to support his argument that
section 3231 is controlling in all cases involving only federal crimes predate the

-- 6 of 8 --

7
enactment of the Act. People v. Tilehkooh (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 1433 did not involve
a juvenile offender. Marcos relies on State v. Tidwell (Wash.Ct.App. 1982) 651 P.2d
228, 231, which held that section 3231 precluded a state court's jurisdiction over a
juvenile delinquency petition based solely on an alleged violation of federal law.
(Accord, Matter of Welfare of J.J.T. (Minn.Ct.App. 1997) 559 N.W.2d 714, 716.)
Neither the Washington nor the Minnesota appellate cases is availing. In State v. Tidwell,
supra, 651 P.2d at pages 230 to 231, the Washington appellate court found section 5032
did not overcome the exclusive jurisdiction of federal court over federal crimes (§ 3231);
rather, section 5032 was merely "an expression of congressional preference for state court
jurisdiction over offenses committed by juveniles." (State v. Tidwell, supra, at p. 230.)
We reject that interpretation of section 5032 because of our conclusion that section 3231
is inapplicable to federal juvenile delinquency claims.
We also find unavailing Marcos's argument that immigration and alienage are the
exclusive province of the federal government and therefore the states may not regulate or
criminalize matters related to immigration or alienage. (See Truax v. Raich (1915) 239
U.S. 33, 42.) At issue in this case is not regulation or criminalization of immigration-
related matters. This case is about whether a California juvenile court has jurisdiction to
adjudicate violations of federal law by a juvenile. We conclude it does under section
5032 when the Attorney General of the United States does not follow the certification
requirement of the statute.

-- 7 of 8 --

8
DISPOSITION
The order of wardship is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.
WE CONCUR:
NARES, J.
O'ROURKE, J.

-- 8 of 8 --