In re S.F. CA3
C099783
Cal. Ct. App.Mar 20, 2025Background
- Minor S.F., age 16, fired multiple shots into a crowded house, injuring five people, including causing one victim paralysis; he was arrested shortly after the incident.
- A petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 was filed, alleging six crimes including assaults with a firearm and shooting at an inhabited dwelling.
- The prosecutor sought to have S.F. transferred to adult court for prosecution under section 707.
- A transfer hearing occurred over several months in 2023, featuring expert and witness testimony about S.F.'s background, gang involvement, cognitive abilities, and amenability to rehabilitation.
- The juvenile court found S.F. not amenable to rehabilitation in the juvenile system and ordered transfer to criminal court by clear and convincing evidence.
- S.F. appealed, challenging the court’s application of section 707 criteria, expert testimony, and the effect of newly-enacted Senate Bill 545.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Application of Section 707 Criteria | S.F.: Court erred in its analysis of criminal sophistication, delinquent history, and offense gravity. | State: Analysis was reasonable and in line with statutory requirements. | Court found no reversible error; criteria applied correctly. |
| Admissibility of Expert Testimony | S.F.: Dr. Urquiza lacked neuropsych expertise, didn’t interview minor; Ditty’s gang opinions unreliable. | State: Experts qualified; testimony acceptable based on professional standards. | Testimony admissible; any errors were harmless. |
| Effect of Senate Bill 545 | S.F.: Law change required remand for new transfer hearing. | State: Amendment is retroactive but did not change result here. | No remand; record shows court considered relevant factors. |
| Substantial Evidence Supporting Transfer | S.F.: Insufficient evidence of unamenability; post-detention improvement ignored. | State: Sufficient evidence on record for transfer decision. | Substantial evidence supported transfer order. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re E.P., 89 Cal.App.5th 409 (transfer findings require considering all section 707 criteria in totality)
- Kevin P. v. Superior Court, 57 Cal.App.5th 173 (standard for review and application of section 707 factors)
- D.C. v. Superior Court, 71 Cal.App.5th 441 (juvenile court discretion to consider all relevant delinquency history)
- People v. Superior Court (Jones), 18 Cal.4th 667 (abuse of discretion standard in transfer determinations)
- Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (standard for harmless error review)