40 Cal.App.5th 626
Cal. Ct. App.2019Background
- Petitioner O.G., age 15, is alleged to have committed two separate murders (one shooting, one stabbing) with gang involvement; Ventura County DA sought to prosecute him in adult court.
- Under Proposition 57 (2016) the DA may file a transfer motion to have a juvenile tried as an adult, subject to superior court approval.
- Senate Bill No. 1391 (effective Jan 1, 2019) bars transfer of 14- and 15-year-olds to adult court for specified crimes, including murder.
- The Ventura Superior Court granted the DA’s transfer request, ruling S.B. 1391 cannot override Proposition 57; O.G. sought extraordinary relief in the Court of Appeal.
- Several Courts of Appeal (split) upheld S.B. 1391 as consistent with Proposition 57; this panel concluded S.B. 1391 is an unconstitutional attempt by the Legislature to nullify the voters’ initiative insofar as it precludes adult prosecution of 15-year-old alleged murderers.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People/DA) | Defendant's Argument (O.G.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether S.B. 1391 unlawfully amends Proposition 57 by forbidding transfer of 15‑year‑olds to adult court | S.B. 1391 is consistent with and furthers Prop 57; Legislature may enact the change | S.B. 1391 prohibits what Prop 57 authorizes; Legislature may not annul an initiative without voter approval | Court: S.B. 1391 is unconstitutional insofar as it precludes adult prosecution of 15‑year‑olds under Prop 57 |
| Whether S.B. 1391 is procedural (permissible) or substantive/jurisdictional (impermissible) | The change is procedural/administrative and within legislative power | The change is jurisdictional/substantive because it removes a transfer possibility authorized by voters | Court: S.B. 1391 effects a jurisdictional/substantive change and cannot override the initiative without voter consent |
| Whether legislative findings that the statute "furthers" Prop 57 are dispositive | Legislative declaration of consistency is entitled to weight and supports validity | Legislative findings are self‑serving; judicial review decides consistency | Court: Legislative findings are not dispositive; courts must determine whether the statute contradicts the initiative |
| Whether Pearson controls the analysis of whether a statute amends an initiative | Prior appellate decisions allow amendment where consistent with intent | Pearson requires asking whether statute prohibits what initiative authorizes or authorizes what initiative prohibits | Court: Pearson is controlling; under its test S.B. 1391 prohibits what Prop 57 authorized and is invalid |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Superior Court (Pearson), 48 Cal.4th 564 (2010) (articulates test: ask whether statute prohibits what initiative authorizes or authorizes what initiative prohibits)
- People v. Kelly, 47 Cal.4th 1008 (2010) (courts must "jealously guard" law declared by voters; Legislature cannot annul voter initiatives)
- DeVita v. County of Napa, 9 Cal.4th 763 (1995) (principle that ultimate sovereign power resides in the people)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court, 57 Cal.2d 450 (1962) (stare decisis and obligation to follow controlling precedent)
- Proposition 103 Enforcement Project v. Quackenbush, 64 Cal.App.4th 1473 (1998) (Legislature may not enact laws that thwart the initiative process)
- People v. Superior Court (T.D.), 38 Cal.App.5th 360 (2019) (appellate decision reaching opposite conclusion, holding S.B. 1391 consistent with Prop 57)