Skip to content
Name: People v. Vela
Case #: G052282
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 3
Opinion Date: 04/24/2017

Juvenile offender who was charged by direct filing and tried as an adult is retroactively entitled to a transfer hearing under Proposition 57 because his case was pending on direct appeal, and not final, when Proposition 57 was enacted. Vela was sentenced to 72 years to life for murder and related gang charges for an offense committed when he was 16 years old. He was charged by direct filing and tried in adult court. While his appeal was pending, voters passed Proposition 57, which eliminated prosecutors' ability to directly file charges against juveniles in adult court. Instead, a juvenile's case…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Mendoza
Case #: H039705
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 6 DCA
Opinion Date: 03/30/2017

Proposition 57 does not apply retroactively to cases that were pending on appeal on the date it went into effect. Ramirez and other defendants were sentenced to 15 years to life for second degree murder with a gang enhancement. Ramirez was 16 years old at the time of the homicide and was charged by direct filing in adult court, as permitted by the laws in effect at the time. While his appeal was pending, voters passed Proposition 57, which eliminated a prosecutor's discretion to directly file charges against juvenile offenders in adult court. Now any allegation of…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Cervantes
Case #: A140464
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 6
Opinion Date: 03/09/2017

Proposition 57 is not retroactive, but applied prospectively, it requires a fitness hearing before a juvenile felon is tried in adult court initially or on remand. Cervantes was sentenced to 66 years to life for a rape and attempted murder he committed when 14 years old. Provided the nature of the offenses, it was mandatory to try him as an adult. Cervantes appealed, raising a number of issues, including ineffective assistance of trial counsel. While his appeal was pending, the voters passed Proposition 57, which eliminated mandatory filing and also eliminated a prosecutor's discretion to charge a juvenile offender as…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Superior Court (Lara)
Case #: E067296
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 03/13/2017

Fitness hearing under Proposition 57 available for juvenile offenders whose cases were directly filed, but not yet tried, in adult court prior to the effective date of Proposition 57. In March 2016, the People directly filed a criminal complaint in adult court against Lara, a minor. Following the passage of Proposition 57, the trial court granted Lara's petition for a fitness hearing to have the juvenile court decide whether he should be tried in adult court. The People filed a writ of mandate/prohibition on the ground that Proposition 57 could not be applied to the minor's case retroactively. Held: Petition…

View Full Summary
Name: In re A.L.
Case #: A141067
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 4
Opinion Date: 01/21/2015

Juvenile court did not abuse its discretion by permitting late amendment of delinquency petition to allege an arming enhancement that was included within the charged enhancement under the accusatory pleading test. A.L., a minor, participated in a robbery in which his companion used a firearm. The prosecutor filed a delinquency petition alleging that A.L. committed a second degree robbery and that he personally used a handgun, a deadly and dangerous weapon (Pen. Code, § 12022, subd. (b)). During closing arguments, the prosecutor requested to amend the charged enhancement to Penal Code section 12022(a), which allows vicarious liability when another…

View Full Summary
Name: Juan G. v. Superior Court
Case #: B241316
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 7
Opinion Date: 10/15/2012

A juvenile court is required to hold a formal fitness hearing before transferring a pending wardship petition to superior court, even when the prosecution has directly filed a criminal complaint against the minor in an unrelated case. The prosecution filed two wardship petitions in juvenile court against the 16-year-old minor, alleging attempted murder and violation of a gang injunction. It simultaneously moved the court to find the minor unfit for juvenile court treatment in the attempted murder case. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 707, subds. (b), (c).) After the prosecution filed an unrelated murder complaint against the minor in superior…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Villa
Case #: C059808
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Opinion Date: 10/15/2009

Penal Code section 12021, subdivision (e) (juvenile adjudged ward for specified offense prohibited from possession of a firearm) and Penal Code section 12031, subdivision (a) (prohibited possession of a loaded firearm in a public place) do not violate an individual's Second Amendment right to bear arms. Having previously been adjudged a ward of the juvenile court for assault with a deadly weapon, appellant was charged directly in the criminal court with attempted murder, committed when he was 16 years of age. (Welf. & Inst. Code, sec. 707, subd. (d)(1).) He was subsequently convicted of possession of a firearm by a…

View Full Summary
Name: Rene C. v. Superior Court
Case #: B185904
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 02/27/2006

A mentally retarded and immature 14-year-old with no prior record should be tried as a juvenile. The minor took part in an altercation between rival gang tagging crews which resulted in the death of one gang member and injury to another. The minor was charged with murder, attempted murder, and assault with a firearm. During the fitness hearing, a psychologist reported that the minor suffered from congenital brain dysfunction and mild mental retardation. The psychologist also testified that the minor’s role in the crimes was passive and that the minor’s mental state was akin to that of…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Superior Court (Marcelina M.)
Case #: F047953
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 5 DCA
Opinion Date: 10/19/2005

A minor’s plea in criminal court does not require an automatic transfer of any subsequent juvenile petition to criminal court. The minor was charged in adult court with various offenses falling under Welfare and Institutions Code section 707(b), as well as offenses that are not included under that section. The prosecutor filed the accusatory pleading in adult court under section 707(d), bypassing the juvenile court. The minor ultimately pled no contest to one count of false imprisonment by violence, an offense that does not fall under section 707(b), and admitted that she was over 16 at the…

View Full Summary
Name: Marcus W. v. Superior Court
Case #: A097679
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 05/01/2002
Subsequent History: None

Where incriminatory statements are offered to establish a prima facie case that a minor committed an offense triggering the presumption of unfitness (Welf. & Inst. Code, sec. 707, subds. (b) and (c)), the court must rule on the admissibility of the statements upon the minor’s motion to exclude…

View Full Summary