Alejandro N. v. Superior Court
238 Cal. App. 4th 1209
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Alejandro N., a juvenile, admitted to a felony commercial burglary; his offense is reclassified as a misdemeanor under Prop. 47, but the court reduces his maximum confinement and denies full reclassification.
- Prop. 47 added § 1170.18 allowing retroactive misdemeanor reclassification for qualifying offenders.
- Alejandro filed a §1170.18 petition in the Superior Court seeking reclassification, DNA expungement, and fine reduction.
- The superior court reduced confinement to the misdemeanor level but refused to reclassify the offense, denied DNA expungement, and declined to reduce the $50 restitution fine.
- Alejandro petitioned for a writ of mandate; the court of appeal issued a writ directing reconsideration of reclassification and DNA expungement, while denying the fine reduction.
- The appellate court concluded Prop. 47’s §1170.18 applies to juveniles via Welfare and Institutions Code §602 and remanded for further action on expungement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §1170.18 applies to juveniles. | Alejandro argues Prop. 47 reclassification applies retroactively to juveniles under §602. | People contend §1170.18 uses adult terminology and does not apply to juveniles. | Yes, §1170.18 applies to juveniles. |
| DNA expungement following misdemeanor reclassification. | Alejandro seeks removal of DNA data after reclassification. | DNA retention is not automatic; canon relies on existing statutes. | Remand to determine whether DNA expungement is warranted. |
| Whether the $50 restitution fine should be reduced with reclassification. | Fine should be reduced to reflect misdemeanor status. | Fine was already within misdemeanor range; no reduction warranted. | Denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Eric J., 25 Cal.3d 522 (Cal. 1979) (juvenile wardship relies on adult criminal offenses; rehab focus)
- In re Myresheia W., 61 Cal.App.4th 734 (Cal. App. 1998) (juvenile disposition differences from adult sentences)
- People v. Nguyen, 46 Cal.4th 1007 (Cal. 2009) (due process protections extended to juveniles; max confinement parity)
- Jovan B., 6 Cal.4th 801 (Cal. 1993) (juvenile wardship incorporates adult offense framework; enhancements apply)
- In re Derrick B., 39 Cal.4th 535 (Cal. 2006) (adult liability terms may not apply to juveniles absent clear intent)
- People v. Rivera, 233 Cal.App.4th 1085 (Cal. App. 2015) (Prop. 47 retroactivity and DNA considerations in appellate context)
- People v. Cervantes, 225 Cal.App.4th 1007 (Cal. App. 2014) (voter intent; applicability of statutes enacted by initiative)