People v. Castillero
245 Cal. Rptr. 3d 90
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2019Background
- In 2015 Castillero (born Aug. 25, 1998) was found unfit for juvenile adjudication and transferred to adult criminal court on serious sexual-offense charges; he later pleaded guilty in 2017 to four counts of Penal Code § 288(b)(1) with a stipulated 40-year sentence.
- The plea covered offenses committed when he was 14, 15, 15–16 (ambiguous), and 16 years old (counts 6, 1, 2, and 5 respectively). Proposition 57 (effective Nov. 9, 2016) altered transfer procedure by requiring prosecutor-filed transfer motions and a juvenile-court transfer hearing.
- Castillero moved, prior to sentencing, for return to juvenile court for a Proposition 57 transfer hearing; the adult court denied the motion and imposed the 40-year sentence. He appealed.
- The parties agreed Proposition 57 applies retroactively to nonfinal sentences (as held in Lara), and that Senate Bill No. 1391 (effective Jan. 1, 2019) bars transfer to adult court for crimes committed under age 16.
- The appellate court vacated the sentence, reversed convictions for counts involving under-16 offenses that now cannot be transferred, and remanded all counts to juvenile court with directions tailored to each count (treat as juvenile adjudications or hold transfer hearings as appropriate).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Castillero) | Defendant's Argument (AG) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Proposition 57 requires remand for a new transfer hearing (retroactivity) | Proposition 57 applies retroactively; he is entitled to a post‑Proposition 57 transfer hearing | Argued variously but AG concedes Proposition 57 applies here | Court: Proposition 57 is retroactive to nonfinal cases; remand to juvenile court for transfer determinations (per Lara) |
| Effect of SB 1391 on counts committed under age 16 | Counts committed under 16 cannot be sent to adult court and should be reversed/dismissed or treated as juvenile adjudications | AG concedes counts under 16 may not be transferred and agrees juvenile disposition is appropriate | Court: Counts where defendant was under 16 (counts 1 and 6) reversed and must be treated as juvenile adjudications; SB 1391 bars transfer for those counts |
| How to resolve ambiguous age for count alleged at 15 or 16 (count 2) | Judicial factfinding cannot cure ambiguity; conviction must remain in juvenile court | AG: Remand to juvenile court for factual determination of age, then transfer hearing if >16 | Court: Remand to juvenile court; juvenile court may determine age beyond a reasonable doubt; if >16 hold transfer hearing, if ≤16 or ambiguous treat as juvenile adjudication |
| Effect of transfer/remand on plea agreement and sentencing | Implicitly argued plea should not be undone without opportunity to withdraw | AG: If transferred back to adult court the plea remains in place and court must resentence consistent with law | Court: Plea agreement stands; adult court cannot vacate it on remand but must resentence consistent with any transfers or juvenile adjudications |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Superior Court (Lara), 4 Cal.5th 299 (retroactivity of Proposition 57 transfer provisions)
- Manduley v. Superior Court, 27 Cal.4th 537 (juvenile fitness/transfer framework prior to Proposition 57)
- People v. Garcia, 30 Cal.App.5th 316 (post‑fitness hearing entitlement to Proposition 57 transfer hearing)
- Doe v. Harris, 57 Cal.4th 64 (plea agreements may be affected by retroactive changes in law)
- Harris v. Superior Court, 1 Cal.5th 984 (electorate may enact retroactive sentencing changes affecting pleas)
- People v. Hiscox, 136 Cal.App.4th 253 (limitations on judicial factfinding at sentencing in adult cases; distinguished here)
- People v. Jones, 51 Cal.3d 294 (standards for proving dates/offense elements; cited for context)