In People v. Malveaux (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 1425, the defendant was arrested in connection with robbery of an elderly woman. He told the police he was under 18 years of age, which was not true. He was then prosecuted in juvenile court for the robbery and possession of cocaine. At the jurisdictional hearing a question arose regarding defendant's true age and he insisted he was 17. His mother was ordered to return to court with his birth certificate, but she did not. At the disposition hearing the juvenile court sustained both counts charged and the defendant was committed to the California Youth Authority. Later, it was discovered that defendant was in fact 26 years of age and the prosecutor filed an adult indictment based on the same crimes which had been the subject of the juvenile proceeding. A motion to dismiss the charges based on section 656 was denied and defendant was ultimately convicted and received a lengthy sentence. He appealed. The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's determination that the juvenile adjudication did not prevent the defendant's adult prosecution. It reviewed the applicable law: "There is, however, an important exception to the bar against retrial which applies here. A defendant cannot prevent a second trial where it can be determined from the record that the defendant intentionally committed fraud on the court in securing the first conviction. The United States Supreme Court has recognized the courts have an inherent ability to correct judgments obtained through fraud or intentional misrepresentation.". . . "The California courts have long recognized that where the 'former conviction was procured by the fraud, connivance, or collusion of the defendant, this fact vitiates it, and it is no bar to a subsequent prosecution. ' Where the defendant perpetrates a fraud on the court to obtain a conviction on a lesser charge, or a charge he knows to be false, the subsequent trial of the defendant is not barred by the prohibition against double jeopardy. The perpetration of fraud on the court must be affirmative actions taken on the part of the defendant. The prosecution cannot use this exception to the bar against double jeopardy to get subsequent attempts at convicting defendant due to trial errors that could have been corrected in a timely manner." (People v. Malveaux, supra, 50 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1440-1441.)