Skip to content
Name: In re T.A. (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 347
Case #: E079346
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 03/23/2023
Subsequent History: Ordered published 4/11/2023

Although juvenile offender was entitled to the ameliorative benefits of amended Welfare and Institutions Code section 707, any error resulting from the application of the prior version was harmless under Watson and remand was unnecessary. In April 2020, the Court of Appeal conditionally reversed T.A.’s 2018 judgment for second degree murder and remanded for a transfer hearing in light of Proposition 57. In May 2022, the juvenile court granted the People’s motion to transfer T.A. to adult court and reinstate the judgment. On appeal, T.A. argued that remand was necessary to allow the juvenile court to reconsider its ruling in…

View Full Summary
Name: In re S.S. (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 1277
Case #: C097055
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Opinion Date: 03/30/2023

Minor is entitled to a new transfer/amenability hearing under the current version of Welfare and Institutions Code section 707, which was significantly amended by Assembly Bill No. 2361 (effective 1/1/2023). Following a hearing to transfer S.S. to a court of criminal jurisdiction for allegations including murder, the juvenile court found S.S. unfit to be treated under the juvenile law based on the standards set forth in former section 707 and transferred the case to criminal court. S.S. appealed. Held: Reversed and remanded. AB 2361 amended section 707 to (1) increase the prosecution’s burden from the preponderance of the evidence to…

View Full Summary
Name: In re E.P. (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 409
Case #: B319738
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 6
Opinion Date: 03/17/2023

Remand for a new fitness hearing was warranted due to significant changes made to Welfare and Institutions Code section 707 by Assembly Bill No. 2361 (effective 1/1/2023). Following a fitness hearing for a delinquency case involving murder and attempted murder allegations, the juvenile court found E.P. unfit to be treated under the juvenile law based on the standards set forth in former section 707 and transferred the case to criminal court. E.P. appealed. Held: Reversed. Recent amendments changed section 707, including increasing the prosecution’s burden from the preponderance of the evidence to clear and convincing, making the question of whether…

View Full Summary
Name: J.N. v. Superior Court (Orange County)
Case #: G055499
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 3
Opinion Date: 05/22/2018

Juvenile court's determination that minor was unsuitable for treatment in the juvenile court was not supported by substantial evidence and was therefore an abuse of discretion. J.N. was charged as an adult with murder, vandalism, and active participation in a street gang for an incident that occurred when he was 17 years old. Following the passage of Proposition 57, the trial court certified J.N. to the juvenile court to determine whether he should be treated in the juvenile system. The juvenile court concluded J.N. should be tried as an adult and transferred the matter back to adult court. J.N. filed…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Vela
Case #: G052282
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 3
Opinion Date: 03/28/2018

The provisions of Proposition 57 that require a juvenile transfer hearing before a minor may be prosecuted and sentenced in criminal (adult) court apply retroactively to all cases not yet final. The People directly filed a criminal complaint against Vela, a minor. A jury found him guilty of murder, attempted murder, and found true related gun use and gang enhancements. Though his judgment was affirmed on appeal, he filed a petition for rehearing, arguing that his case should be remanded for a juvenile transfer hearing pursuant to Proposition 57. Held: Conditional reversal. While the appeal in this case was pending,…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Superior Court (Lara)
Case #: S241231
Court: CA Supreme Court
District CalSup
Opinion Date: 02/01/2018

Because Proposition 57 reduces the possible punishment for a class of persons, namely juveniles, the rationale of In re Estrada (1965) 63 Cal.2d 740 requires retroactive application of the law to all cases not final when the law was enacted. In March 2016, the People directly filed a criminal complaint against Lara, a minor. Following the passage of Proposition 57, the trial court granted Lara's petition for a fitness hearing in juvenile court and issued a short stay so the People could seek writ review. The People filed a petition for writ of mandate/prohibition asserting that Proposition 57 did not…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Brewer
Case #: F070564
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 5 DCA
Opinion Date: 11/17/2017

Proposition 57 does not apply retroactively to juvenile defendants who were tried, convicted, and sentenced before its effective date, but whose cases were not yet final on appeal. Brewer, who was 16 years old at the time of the offense, was convicted in criminal court of a number of sex and other offenses committed during a first degree burglary. A One Strike allegation was found true. He was sentenced to 25 years to life in prison. After his case was affirmed on appeal, he petitioned for rehearing to seek application of Proposition 57 to his case. The court granted rehearing…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Navarra
Case #: F071142
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 5 DCA
Opinion Date: 10/16/2017

Proposition 57 does not apply retroactively to juvenile homicide offenders who were tried, convicted, and sentenced before the Act's effective date. A jury convicted Navarra of the 2008 first degree murder of Pike and other offenses, and found a lying-in-wait special circumstance true. Navarra, who was 16 years old at the time of the offense, was sentenced to LWOP. In its original opinion, the Court of Appeal affirmed. Navarra petitioned for rehearing, arguing that Montgomery v. Louisiana (2016) 577 U.S. __ and In re Estrada (1965) 63 Cal.2d 740, mandated retroactive application of Proposition 57 to her case to afford…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Superior Court (Walker)
Case #: D071461
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 06/08/2017

The Estrada qualification to the presumption of prospective application of statutes does not apply to Proposition 57. In 2012, Walker was charged by direct filing in adult court with attempted murder and related crimes committed when he was 17 years old, and was awaiting retrial when Proposition 57 passed in November 2016. Walker subsequently filed a motion to transfer his case to juvenile court in light of Proposition 57, which eliminated the People's ability to directly file criminal charges against juvenile offenders in adult court and requires a transfer hearing in front of a juvenile court judge before a juvenile…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Marquez
Case #: F070609
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 5 DCA
Opinion Date: 05/16/2017

Proposition 57's juvenile offender provisions do not apply retroactively to cases that were pending on appeal before its operative date. Marquez was 17 years old when he killed a woman during an attempted robbery. He was charged as an adult and convicted of first degree murder with special circumstances. He was sentenced to LWOP. After his case was remanded to the trial court to reconsider his sentence in light of Miller v. Alabama (2012) 567 U.S. 460, his LWOP sentence was reimposed. He appealed. After Proposition 57 was enacted, he filed a supplemental brief arguing that the new proposition applies…

View Full Summary