42 Cal.App.5th 1131
Cal. Ct. App.2019Background
- Petitioner Narith S. was 15 when charged in 2015 with multiple attempted murder counts arising from a gang-related drive-by; five victims were shot and survived. After Miranda warnings he admitted firing shots from a car.
- Narith was arraigned in adult criminal court; juvenile court proceedings between 2016–2018 resulted in findings of unfitness and certification back to adult court.
- SB 1391 (effective Jan. 1, 2019) bars prosecutors from seeking transfer of 14- and 15-year-olds to adult court (with a narrow exception) and was enacted as a legislative amendment said to be consistent with Proposition 57.
- On Jan. 3, 2019 Narith moved to remand his case to juvenile court under SB 1391; the district attorney opposed, arguing SB 1391 unconstitutionally amended Proposition 57.
- The superior court denied remand, ruling SB 1391 unconstitutional; this petition for writ of mandate challenges that ruling. The Court of Appeal granted the petition, finding SB 1391 constitutional and directing remand to juvenile court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether SB 1391 is an unconstitutional amendment to Prop 57 | DA: Prop 57 gave judges discretion to transfer 14–15 year olds; SB 1391 removes that discretion and thus violates Prop 57’s amendment limitation | SB 1391: It furthers Prop 57’s core intent to emphasize rehabilitation and reduce adult prosecutions; amendments are permitted so long as consistent with that intent; legislative findings deserve deference | Court: SB 1391 is constitutional because it is consistent with and furthers Proposition 57’s intent; presumption of constitutionality applies |
| Whether Narith must be remanded to juvenile court | DA: Opposes remand unless SB 1391 invalidated | Narith: SB 1391 applies and requires remand of 14–15 year-olds to juvenile court | Court: Remand ordered — superior court must vacate denial and grant motion to transfer Narith to juvenile court |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Superior Court (Alexander C.), 34 Cal. App. 5th 994 (2019) (upheld SB 1391 as consistent with Prop 57’s rehabilitation focus)
- People v. Superior Court (K.L.), 36 Cal. App. 5th 529 (2019) (concluded SB 1391 furthers Prop 57’s intent to reduce adult prosecutions)
- People v. Superior Court (T.D.), 38 Cal. App. 5th 360 (2019) (applied Amwest framework and upheld SB 1391 under a reasonable-construction test)
- People v. Superior Court (S.L.), 40 Cal. App. 5th 114 (2019) (majority held SB 1391 consistent with Prop 57; dissent viewed conflict as statutory interpretation)
- B.M. v. Superior Court, 40 Cal. App. 5th 742 (2019) (held SB 1391 furthers each express purpose of Prop 57 and is constitutional)
- O.G. v. Superior Court, 40 Cal. App. 5th 626 (2019) (division disagreed and found SB 1391 unconstitutional for 15‑year‑old murder defendant)
- Amwest Surety Ins. Co. v. Wilson, 11 Cal. 4th 1243 (1995) (framework for construing voter initiatives and amendments)
- People v. Superior Court (Lara), 4 Cal. 5th 299 (2018) (discusses Proposition 57’s restoration of judicial transfer decisionmaking)
- People v. Superior Court (Pearson), 48 Cal. 4th 564 (2010) (principles on when legislation impermissibly amends an initiative)