L.R. v. Superior Court CA4/3, G059599

Background

In 2007, 16‑year‑old L.R. (just turned 16 twenty‑five days earlier) participated in a gang "hit up," armed himself, shot and killed two people, reloaded, and attempted to dispose of the gun; DNA and gunshot residue linked him to the weapon.
L.R. was tried as an adult, convicted of two counts of murder and street terrorism, and sentenced in 2011 to life without parole plus additional years; appellate proceedings led to resentencing issues and remands, and later to reconsideration under People v. Gutierrez.
After Proposition 57 changed juvenile transfer procedure, the trial court ordered a section 707 transfer hearing in juvenile court to determine whether L.R. should remain subject to adult prosecution.
The juvenile court received two principal reports: the Probation (OCPD) section 707 report (which recommended suitability for juvenile court) and a psychological evaluation by Dr. Rogers (which described deficits, substance abuse history, remorse, and potential amenability to treatment but did not give a definitive transfer recommendation).
At the transfer hearing the juvenile court found the criminal sophistication and gravity of the offense weighed for transfer, prior delinquent history and prior attempts at rehabilitation weighed for retention, and rehabilitatability was neutral; the court ordered transfer to adult court.
On appeal by writ, the appellate court denied relief: it held substantial evidence supported the juvenile court’s factual findings on each statutory factor, and although the juvenile court could have better explained its cumulative weighing, the transfer decision was not an abuse of discretion.

Issues

Issue	L.R.'s Argument	OCDA/People's Argument	Held
Suitability for transfer under Cal. Pen. Code § 707	Juvenile court erred; factors overall favor juvenile rehabilitation and retention	Prosecution met preponderance burden showing unsuitability	Transfer upheld; substantial evidence supports unsuitability overall
Criminal sophistication (§707(a)(3)(A))	L.R. was young, impulsive, susceptible to peer pressure and immature	Evidence of planning: armed before confrontation, reloaded, disposed of gun, above‑average intellect — shows sophistication	Court reasonably found sophistication favored transfer; substantial evidence supports it
Rehabilitatability before juvenile jurisdiction expires (§707(a)(3)(B))	L.R. made educational and personal progress in custody and is amenable to treatment	Limited DJJ time/programming, ongoing gang ties and custody discipline make rehabilitation unlikely in available period	Court found this factor neutral/equal; substantial evidence supports that assessment
Adequacy of juvenile court’s evaluative process and findings	Court failed to adequately articulate cumulative weighing and identify persuasive facts; reversible error	Court identified which factors favored/against transfer and considered evidence	Appellate court criticized incomplete cumulative explanation but held overall articulation and evidentiary support were sufficient; denial of writ affirmed

Key Cases Cited

People v. Gutierrez, 58 Cal.4th 1354 (Cal. 2014) (contextual authority on juvenile sentencing/resentencing considerations)
People v. Superior Court (Jones), 18 Cal.4th 667 (Cal. 1998) (explaining substantial‑evidence standard for transfer determinations)
J.N. v. Superior Court, 23 Cal.App.5th 706 (Cal. Ct. App. 2018) (reversed transfer where record lacked substantial evidence as to gravity and other factors)
C.S. v. Superior Court, 29 Cal.App.5th 1009 (Cal. Ct. App. 2018) (requires juvenile courts to articulate evaluative process and state which statutory criteria weigh for/against transfer)
People v. Ramirez, 35 Cal.App.5th 55 (Cal. Ct. App. 2019) (prior appellate treatment of this defendant and transfer proceedings)
People v. Ramirez et al., 219 Cal.App.4th 655 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013) (earlier appellate opinion affirming convictions and discussing trial testimony and uncharged conduct)