Court Opinion

ID: 9632084
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 11:02:35.180137+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:08:08.312891
License: Public Domain

TUCKETT, Justice
(dissenting).
I dissent. The opinion of Mr. Chief Justice Crockett proceeds on the basis that the hearing before the juvenile court, on October 12, 1967, which resulted in the court committing Steven Ernie Velasquez to the State Industrial School for a second time was a hearing concerned with his violation of probation. My review of the record leads me to a different conclusion. As pointed out in the opinion of the Chief Justice, Steven was committed to the State Industrial School on November 7, 1966, and he was released by the School authorities in the summer of 1967. The power to return a student to the School for violation of the terms of his probation rests with the Public Welfare Commission and not with the court.1
My survey of the record indicates that during the year, 1967, Steven was accused of further delinquencies in the juvenile court which resulted in the second commitment. I am of the opinion that at the hearing on the new delinquencies the court failed to adequately inform Steven and his mother of their right to be represented by legal counsel. The record of the juvenile court indicates that at the outset the court made a statement in the following language: “The law specifies that the child can be represented by legal counsel. This is required.” The transcript of the proceedings is silent as to the court advising Steven or his mother further about their right to counsel,2 nor did the court inquire as to whether or not Mrs. Velasquez or her son had sufficient resources with which to employ counsel.
At the hearing before the juvenile court no witnesses were called to testify concerning the delinquencies charged against Steven. The record indicates that the court made its findings as to Steven’s guilt solely from questions put to the boy by the court concerning the truth or falsity of the allegations contained in the petition. I Can think of no other occasion where a boy,' age 14, *234would be more in need of counsel, and this is especially true where the proceedings before the court might reasonably subject him to being deprived of his liberty for a period of years. I would reverse.
HENRIOD, J., does not participate herein.

. Sections 64-68, U.C.A.1953. See also Ex parte S. H., 1 Utah 2d 186, 264 P.2d 850.

. In Re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 87 S.Ct. 1428, 18 L.Ed.2d 527, Sec. 55-10-96, U.C.A. 1953.