In re Davion M. CA1/3, A167516

Davion M., a minor (aged 17 at the offense), was alleged to have shot and killed a man during an attempted robbery, after planning the crime with adult associates.
The People filed a petition asserting juvenile jurisdiction under section 602 and sought to transfer Davion’s case to adult criminal court pursuant to section 707.
The transfer hearing involved extensive testimony, including from law enforcement, probation officers, psychologists, and gang experts, about Davion’s criminal sophistication, extensive delinquency history, gang involvement, and amenability to rehabilitation.
The probation department recommended juvenile retention, noting some mitigating factors and that Davion could benefit from services. The prosecution’s psychologist and other evidence emphasized the difficulty and unlikelihood of rehabilitation in the juvenile system.
The juvenile court, after a detailed review of the five statutory section 707(a)(3) factors, granted the People’s motion to transfer, finding Davion not amenable to rehabilitation within the juvenile system by clear and convincing evidence.
On appeal, Davion challenged both the sufficiency of the evidence and the adequacy of the court’s reasoning under recent statutory amendments.

Issue	Plaintiff’s Argument	Defendant’s Argument	Held
Sufficiency of Evidence for Transfer	Davion is not amenable to rehabilitation in juvenile court based on sophistication, history, gravity.	Davion is amenable to rehabilitation; both experts acknowledged possibility; prosecution failed to show adequacy of available programs.	Affirmed transfer; evidence supports finding of non-amenability by clear and convincing evidence.
Need for Court to State Reasons (2023/24 Amendments)	Court provided sufficient, on-the-record reasons for decision, as required by amended section 707.	Ruling lacked sufficient explanation focused on actual amenability; should be remanded for more precise findings.	Affirmed; court’s lengthy order addressed statutory factors and ultimate amenability finding.
Impact of 2023/24 Amendments on Transfer Analysis	Amendments require stronger burden of proof and statement of reasons, but court complied.	Requirement to consider new or expanded statutory factors mandates remand for reconsideration.	No remand required; court considered/record shows relevant factors addressed; harmless error, if any.
Weight of Rehabilitation Timing vs. Other Criteria	Other criteria (history, sophistication, offense gravity) sufficient by themselves under the law.	Failure of proof on time for rehabilitation should preclude transfer under clear and convincing standard.	Ultimate finding may rest on any predominating criteria; other criteria justified transfer.

In re J.S., 105 Cal.App.5th 205 (Cal. Ct. App. 2024) (discussing court’s duty to consider section 707 factors in juvenile transfer)
In re Miguel R., 100 Cal.App.5th 152 (Cal. Ct. App. 2024) (clarifies that ultimate amenability finding can rest on predominating criteria; amendments apply retroactively)
People v. Superior Court, 18 Cal.4th 667 (Cal. 1998) (standard of review for transfer motions—abuse of discretion)
Jimmy H. v. Superior Court, 3 Cal.3d 709 (Cal. 1970) (prior expert testimony on treatability in juvenile system is entitled to weight but not conclusive)