43 Cal.App.5th 1116
Cal. Ct. App.2020Background
- In 2005, Andrew M., shortly before age 18, was convicted by jury of first‑degree murder (special circumstance), multiple robberies, and related enhancements; originally sentenced to LWOP plus additional terms. After various appeals and remands (including Miller issues), he remained subject to LWOP.
- While his appeals were pending, Proposition 57 took effect, requiring juvenile transfer hearings before prosecutors may seek criminal trial for certain minors; appellate courts may conditionally reverse and remand for a transfer hearing under People v. Lara.
- In February 2019 the appellate court conditionally reversed and remanded to the juvenile court for a Prop. 57 transfer hearing; the procedure preserves the jury verdict and either (1) reinstates convictions and requires resentencing if the juvenile court would have transferred, or (2) treats convictions as juvenile adjudications if not transferred.
- On remand the prosecution moved to assign the transfer hearing to the original trial judge (Judge Brady); Andrew M. filed a Code Civ. Proc. § 170.6 challenge arguing the transfer hearing is a “new trial” that warrants disqualification.
- The superior court denied the § 170.6 challenge, concluding the remand/transfer hearing was driven by a change in law and was not a “new trial.” Andrew M. sought writ relief; the appellate court denied the petition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Andrew M.) | Defendant's Argument (Respondent/People) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a conditional reversal and limited remand for a Proposition 57 transfer hearing constitutes a “new trial” under Code Civ. Proc. § 170.6(a)(2) | The transfer hearing is equivalent to a new trial, so the judge who presided before must be disqualified under § 170.6 | The transfer hearing is not a new trial but a limited remand/procedure required by changed law (akin to resentencing); § 170.6 does not apply | The transfer hearing is not a "new trial" for § 170.6 purposes; the § 170.6 challenge was properly denied (Peracchi governs) |
Key Cases Cited
- Peracchi v. Superior Court, 30 Cal.4th 1245 (2003) (holding a remand for resentencing is not a "new trial" under § 170.6)
- People v. Superior Court (Lara), 4 Cal.5th 299 (2018) (approving conditional reversal/remand procedure for Prop. 57 transfer hearings)
- Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012) (barred mandatory LWOP for juvenile offenders; guided resentencing analysis)
- People v. Hargis, 33 Cal.App.5th 199 (2019) (defendant not entitled to a jurisdictional second trial in juvenile court under Lara procedure)
- Joe Z. v. Superior Court, 3 Cal.3d 797 (1970) (characterizing delinquency proceedings as quasi‑criminal)
- People v. Riva, 112 Cal.App.4th 981 (2003) (describing a new trial as a "do over")
- People v. Gutierrez, 58 Cal.4th 1354 (2014) (remand for resentencing in light of Miller principles)