People v. Hargis
244 Cal. Rptr. 3d 745
| Cal. Ct. App. 5th | 2019Background
- Daryl Hargis (age 16 at offense) was charged and tried as an adult, convicted of multiple offenses including attempted murder of a peace officer and gang enhancements, and sentenced to a lengthy term that included multiple firearm enhancements.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed convictions and sentence, but remanded to the trial court only to allow Hargis to make a record for a future youth offender parole hearing (Franklin-related limited remand).
- Proposition 57 (enacted Nov 8, 2016; effective Nov 9, 2016) thereafter eliminated prosecutor-only direct filing for juveniles and required juvenile fitness/transfer hearings before trying juveniles as adults.
- Remittitur issued Jan 3, 2017; the trial court, on remand, held a Franklin-style hearing and declined to entertain Hargis’s motion to transfer to juvenile court, concluding it lacked jurisdiction under the limited remand.
- While proceedings continued on remand, Senate Bill No. 620 (effective Jan 1, 2018) amended Penal Code § 12022.53 to permit courts to strike firearm enhancements in the interest of justice; Hargis’s sentence had become final before that amendment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Proposition 57 entitles Hargis to a juvenile fitness/transfer hearing despite the Court of Appeal’s limited remand | Attorney General: remand scope limits trial court jurisdiction; Proposition 57 issues are outside remand and nonretroactive | Hargis: Prop 57 applies to juveniles whose judgments were not final when enacted; trial court should hold fitness hearing | Court: Prop 57 applies; trial court should have entertained and must conduct juvenile fitness/transfer hearing; convictions/sentence conditionally reversed and remanded to juvenile court |
| Whether SB 620’s grant of discretion to strike §12022.53 firearm enhancements entitles Hargis to resentencing or enhancement-striking | Attorney General: SB 620 is retroactive only to nonfinal cases; Hargis’s sentence was final before amendment so he is not entitled | Hargis: ameliorative change should apply; asks remand for exercise of discretion to strike enhancements | Court: Application depends on juvenile hearing outcome—if juvenile court retains jurisdiction (treat convictions as juvenile adjudications) the court must exercise §12022.53(h) discretion; if case remains in adult court, sentence reinstated and SB 620 does not apply to final adult sentence |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Franklin, 63 Cal.4th 261 (clarifies Franklin hearing/record for youth offender parole board)
- People v. Lara, 4 Cal.5th 299 (Proposition 57 applies to juveniles charged directly in adult court whose judgments were not final when Prop. 57 was enacted)
- In re Estrada, 63 Cal.2d 740 (ameliorative statutes presumptively apply to nonfinal judgments)
- People v. Dutra, 145 Cal.App.4th 1359 (remittitur limits trial court to matters necessary to carry judgment into effect)
- People v. Vieira, 35 Cal.4th 264 (finality for retroactivity purposes explained)
- People v. Rittger, 55 Cal.2d 849 (trial court lacked jurisdiction to change judgment after remittitur in death-penalty context)
- People v. Murphy, 88 Cal.App.4th 392 (scope of issues after limited remand is defined by remand order)