In re D.W. CA4/2, E078748

Background

In October 2017, when he was two weeks shy of 18, D.W. participated in an attempted robbery; he fired at a fleeing vehicle and killed one victim.
The People filed a juvenile wardship petition in May 2021 (D.W. was 21 then) and moved under Welf. & Inst. Code § 707 to transfer the case to adult criminal court on grounds D.W. was not amenable to juvenile treatment.
A psychological evaluation reported bipolar disorder, ADHD, learning deficits, and limited cognitive functioning; the evaluator recommended intensive treatment and educational services.
The probation department recommended transfer after evaluating the five § 707 factors (criminal sophistication; ability to rehabilitate before jurisdiction expires; prior delinquency; success of previous interventions; gravity of the current offense).
The juvenile court found all five factors favored transfer (emphasizing D.W.’s active and sophisticated role, prior delinquency and failed interventions, limited time left under juvenile jurisdiction, and the extreme gravity of a homicide) and granted the motion.
D.W. appealed, arguing the court failed properly to consider the § 707 factors; the Court of Appeal affirmed.

Issues

Issue	People’s Argument	D.W.’s Argument	Held
Criminal sophistication (§ 707(a)(3)(A))	D.W. acted with planning and skill: procured/loaded a handgun, wore gloves, lured victims, surrounded vehicle, cleaned and disposed of gun — shows sophistication.	Court overstated sophistication given his youth and mental/learning disorders.	Affirmed: evidence supported finding of significant criminal sophistication.
Ability to be rehabilitated before juvenile jurisdiction expires (§ 707(a)(3)(B))	Given D.W.’s age, serious offense (Pathways commitment), pending adult charges, and past behavior, rehabilitation would require services beyond juvenile jurisdiction.	He could have benefited from available juvenile services before turning 25.	Affirmed: juvenile court reasonably found insufficient time/opportunity for meaningful rehabilitation.
Prior delinquent history and success of prior interventions (§ 707(a)(3)(C),(D))	Multiple adjudications and escalation to homicide despite prior programs (e.g., Wraparound) show prior efforts largely unsuccessful.	Prior services were available and not fully exhausted; history not dispositive.	Affirmed: court permissibly weighed repeated reoffending and limited success of past interventions toward transfer.
Circumstances and gravity of the offense (§ 707(a)(3)(E))	The offense resulted in death; D.W. actively armed himself and fired repeatedly at a fleeing vehicle — shows callousness and dangerousness favoring transfer.	D.W. was merely backup and fired out of fear for another’s safety, mitigating culpability.	Affirmed: court reasonably concluded the gravity and circumstances weighed in favor of transfer.

Key Cases Cited

Kent v. United States, 383 U.S. 541 (U.S. 1966) (juvenile waiver/transfer orders must state reasons with sufficient specificity).
People v. Superior Court (Jones), 18 Cal.4th 667 (Cal. 1998) (identifies criminal sophistication and other factors relevant to transfer).
People v. Padilla, 13 Cal.5th 152 (Cal. 2022) (section 707 factors are discretionary considerations for juvenile courts).
In re R.V., 61 Cal.4th 181 (Cal. 2015) (appellate review of transfer orders uses substantial-evidence deferential standard).
Kevin P. v. Superior Court, 57 Cal.App.5th 173 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020) (gravity criterion assumes the offense was committed and may consider mitigating evidence).
C.S. v. Superior Court, 29 Cal.App.5th 1009 (Cal. Ct. App. 2018) (juvenile court may assign unequal weight to § 707 factors).
In re Caden C., 11 Cal.5th 614 (Cal. 2021) (reviewers should not reweigh evidence; substantial-evidence review governs factual findings).
People v. Chi Ko Wong, 18 Cal.3d 698 (Cal. 1976) (transfer hearing determines amenability to juvenile treatment, not guilt).