Skip to content
Name: People v. Ramirez
Case #: G056522
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 3
Opinion Date: 05/10/2019

On remand for resentencing in adult court, trial court had jurisdiction to transfer case involving juvenile offenders to the juvenile court, which has jurisdiction to hold a transfer hearing for defendants who are now over 25 years old. In 2007, Ramirez and Armendariz committed two gang-related murders when they were 16 years old. Following a trial in adult court, Ramirez was sentenced to LWOP, plus 65 years to life, and Armendariz was sentenced to 90 years to life. In their first appeal, their sentences were reversed and the case was remanded for resentencing. Following the remand, defendants filed a motion…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Castillero
Case #: H044944
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 6 DCA
Opinion Date: 03/25/2019

Trial court erred in not transferring defendant's case back to juvenile court for a post-Proposition 57 transfer hearing where his original hearing in juvenile court occurred before the passage of Proposition 57. In 2015 Castillero, then a minor, was charged in juvenile court with a number of serious sex offenses committed against minors. He was found unfit for juvenile adjudication and his case was transferred to adult/criminal court. In criminal court in 2017, Castillero pleaded guilty to four of the offenses and stipulated to a 40-year sentence. The offenses spanned a period of time during which Castillero was 14 to…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Hargis
Case #: F076087
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 5 DCA
Opinion Date: 03/20/2019

Where Court of Appeal remanded case for a Franklin hearing, the trial court had jurisdiction to grant defendant's motion for a juvenile fitness/transfer hearing under Proposition 57 because the new law went into effect after the appellate opinion was filed, but before the case was final. In 2009, 16-year-old Hargis was convicted in criminal court of various offenses. His first appeal resulted in remand for a Franklin hearing to present facts for a future youthful parole hearing. The remittitur issued and the trial court set the matter for a hearing. Prior to the Franklin hearing, Proposition 57 was enacted and…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Garcia
Case #: B269836
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 6
Opinion Date: 12/17/2018

Defendant who was 17 years old when he committed multiple sexual offenses is entitled to a remand of his case for a new juvenile fitness hearing because after Proposition 57 the criteria changed to determine whether a minor is fit for juvenile court treatment. In 1995, when Garcia was 17 years old, he committed violent sexual offenses against multiple victims. After a juvenile court fitness hearing, he was transferred to criminal court, where he received a 94-years-to-life sentence. In 2012, Garcia sought resentencing based on a new line of cases holding a sentence which amounts to LWOP imposed on a…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Baldivia
Case #: H043736
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 6 DCA
Opinion Date: 11/05/2018

Plea agreements contemplate changes in the law when the Legislature intended those changes to apply and such issues may be raised on appeal without a certificate of probable cause (CPC). Appellant committed several offenses when he was 17 years old and was charged with those crimes in criminal court. In May 2016, he pleaded guilty to two robberies, evading an officer, and admitted a gun use enhancement. He filed a notice of appeal and did not obtain a CPC. While his appeal was pending, Proposition 57 passed. This new law requires cases involving minors to be filed in juvenile court…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Carter
Case #: C074051
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Opinion Date: 09/05/2018

Trial court's consideration of juvenile offender's youth in determining whether to strike a prior serious felony before imposing a de facto LWOP sentence did not adequately discharge its duty under the Eighth Amendment. Carter was convicted of second degree murder and gun use for a crime committed when he was 17 years old. A prior serious felony was found true. He was sentenced to 55 years to life. On appeal he challenged his sentence as cruel and unusual punishment. Held: Reversed and remanded. The Eighth Amendment restrictions on sentencing juveniles to LWOPs also apply to terms that are de facto…

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. Barboza
Case #: A150888
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 03/14/2018

Defendant on probation was not entitled to retroactive application of Proposition 57 under In re Estrada (1965) 63 Cal.2d 740 because his conviction was final before Proposition 57 went into effect. In July 2016, Barboza pleaded guilty to a single count of robbery and admitted a firearm allegation in adult court. He was a minor at the time of the offenses. The trial court imposed a six-year prison term, suspended execution of the sentence, and placed Barboza on probation. He did not appeal. On November 8, 2016, Proposition 57 passed, requiring a judge, not a prosecutor, to…

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