People v. Campos CA3
C095280
Cal. Ct. App.Oct 27, 2022Background:
- In 2015 Daniel Campos pleaded guilty to attempted murder with a firearm and gang participation and admitted he was 14 at the time; he was sentenced to 17 years 8 months.
- Campos did not appeal; the judgment became final in 2015 after the time to petition for certiorari expired.
- Proposition 57 (2016) and Senate Bill No. 1391 (effective Jan. 1, 2019) changed transfer procedures for juveniles but have been held to apply only to nonfinal judgments.
- In February 2020 Campos sought a Franklin hearing and moved to remand his final case to juvenile court under the later reforms; the trial court granted a Franklin hearing but denied remand on November 29, 2021.
- Campos appealed the denial; appellate counsel filed a Wende brief and Campos did not file a supplemental brief. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Campos’s final 2015 judgment could be remanded to juvenile court under Prop 57 / SB 1391 | The People: Judgment was final in 2015; statutory reforms apply only to nonfinal judgments, so remand is unavailable | Campos: Changed law and a Franklin hearing justify remand to juvenile court | The court: Denied remand — judgment was final and not eligible for postjudgment transfer; appeal dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Wende, 25 Cal.3d 436 (Cal. 1979) (procedural framework for counsel to brief an appeal when no arguable issues exist)
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (federal counterpart to Wende for counsel’s duties on frivolous appeals)
- People v. Superior Court (Lara), 4 Cal.5th 299 (Cal. 2018) (Prop 57 applies to juveniles whose judgments were not final when enacted)
- People v. Lizarraga, 56 Cal.App.5th 201 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020) (a final judgment is not reopened by postjudgment transfer rules)
- People v. Franklin, 63 Cal.4th 261 (Cal. 2016) (procedures governing Franklin hearings)
- Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551 (U.S. 1987) (limits on postconviction review rights and appellate review duties)
- People v. Cole, 52 Cal.App.5th 1023 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020) (Wende review not required for appeals from postjudgment orders)
- People v. Figueras, 61 Cal.App.5th 108 (Cal. Ct. App. 2021) (collecting authority that Wende/Anders review is limited and not required for postconviction appeals)