Opinion ID: 1113445
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Lack of Fundamental Jurisdiction

Text: Historically, habeas corpus provided an avenue of relief for only those criminal defendants confined by a judgment of a court that lacked fundamental jurisdiction, that is, jurisdiction over the person or subject matter. (See Ex parte Long (1896) 114 Cal. 159 [45 P. 1057].) (11) Although this strict jurisdictional view of habeas corpus has changed over the years, it is clear that a true lack of fundamental jurisdiction in the strict sense of the phrase results in a void judgment, for the court was entirely without power over the subject matter or the parties. (See People v. Superior Court ( Marks ) (1991) 1 Cal.4th 56, 66 [2 Cal. Rptr.2d 389, 820 P.2d 613]; Abelleira v. District Court of Appeal (1941) 17 Cal.2d 280, 288 [109 P.2d 942, 132 A.L.R. 715].) A judgment rendered by a court wholly lacking jurisdiction may be challenged at any time. Petitioner asserts his case comes within this classic exception to the Waltreus rule. As we explain, we conclude the trial court possessed subject matter jurisdiction in this case. Accordingly, we reject the notion that Waltreus is inapplicable to his case on this theory. [11] (12) Petitioner contends that because he was not yet 16 years old on the day the crimes were committed, the juvenile court had exclusive jurisdiction over the offenses. [T]he Welfare and Institutions Code provides that the juvenile courts exercise exclusive jurisdiction over all minors under the age of 16; these children cannot otherwise be tried as criminal offenders. ( In re Gladys R. (1970) 1 Cal.3d 855, 862 [83 Cal. Rptr. 671, 464 P.2d 127]; see In re James G. (1985) 165 Cal. App.3d 462, 466 [211 Cal. Rptr. 611].) Welfare and Institutions Code section 707 also suggests as much; by providing that minors between 16 and 18 years old may be found unfit to be tried as juveniles and therefore tried as adults, that section implies by negative inference that those under 16 years of age cannot be so tried. Nevertheless, even if we assume petitioner did not turn 16 years old until his 16th birthday (see discussion, post, p. 844 et seq.), his assertion that the superior court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to try him under general, adult law is incorrect. Whether a case should proceed in juvenile or adult court does not involve an issue of subject matter jurisdiction. ( People v. Nguyen (1990) 222 Cal. App.3d 1612, 1619 [272 Cal. Rptr. 523].) There is but one superior court in a county, though it is divided into different departments. (See 2 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (3d ed. 1985) Courts, § 184, pp. 208-209.) Because petitioner was charged with a felony, the superior court had subject matter jurisdiction. If he was under 16 years of age, however, the criminal department of the superior court lacked jurisdiction to act, and its trial of petitioner thus constituted an excess of jurisdiction, not a lack of fundamental jurisdiction. (See id., Courts, § 185 at pp. 209-210.) Because a lack of fundamental jurisdiction may not be waived, this view is consistent with the many cases holding that the right to trial in the proper department of the superior court may be waived. [I]t is well settled that a person who is eligible to have his or her case proceed in juvenile court may waive this right either knowingly, or by failing to timely and properly raise the matter. ( People v. Nguyen, supra, 222 Cal. App.3d at p. 1620.) Of course, if the superior court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over such a case, no waiver of the right to proceed in juvenile court could ever be effective. This general rule applies in cases, as here, when the accused fails to timely object, on the basis of his or her age, to the adult court's assumption of jurisdiction. For example, in People v. Oxnam (1915) 170 Cal. 211 [149 P. 165], overruled on other grounds in In re Ramon M. (1978) 22 Cal.3d 419, 429 [149 Cal. Rptr. 387, 584 P.2d 524], footnote 12, this court, interpreting the predecessor Juvenile Court Act, held the accused's failure to raise the matter of his age prior to his appeal foreclosed the argument on appeal that he was too young to be tried in adult court. ( People v. Oxnam, supra, at pp. 219-220.) People v. Navarro (1963) 212 Cal. App.2d 299 [27 Cal. Rptr. 716] is to the same effect. In that case, the defendant raised, for the first time on appeal, the claim that he was only 17 at the time of the crime. The Court of Appeal rejected the claim, explaining that [i]f in fact he was under 18 years of age, it was his duty or the duty of his attorney to call this fact to the attention of the court, and failure to do so is a waiver of any rights thus granted. ( Id. at p. 303.) It follows the superior court did not lack subject matter jurisdiction over petitioner, and he is not excepted from the Waltreus rule on that ground.