35 Cal.App.5th 55
Cal. Ct. App.2019Background
- Ramirez and Armendariz, both 16 at the time, were convicted of gang-related murders; jury verdicts and lengthy adult sentences followed.
- This court previously reversed the sentences as excessive for juveniles and remanded for resentencing under the youth-factor rule in Gutierrez.
- After remand, Proposition 57 (eliminating direct-file for juveniles and requiring juvenile-court transfer hearings before adult prosecution) was enacted and held retroactive by the California Supreme Court in Lara.
- Defendants moved to remand the case to juvenile court for transfer hearings per Proposition 57 and Lara; the trial court granted the motion and transferred the matter to juvenile court.
- The District Attorney appealed, arguing (1) the transfer exceeded the scope of the remittitur and (2) the juvenile court lacked jurisdiction because defendants had aged out of juvenile court.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed the transfer order, holding the order was appealable, within the remittitur’s scope, and that the juvenile court had initial jurisdiction to hold transfer hearings for crimes committed while defendants were minors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the trial court’s transfer order appealable under Penal Code §1238(a)(5)? | The People contended the order is appealable as an "order made after judgment, affecting the substantial rights of the people." | Defendants argued no operative judgment existed after sentence reversal, so the order is not appealable. | Appealable: the original sentence remained an operative judgment pending remand, so the transfer order was a postjudgment order affecting the People’s rights. |
| Did the transfer to juvenile court exceed the scope of the remittitur? | People argued remittitur limited the trial court to resentencing; transfer exceeded that scope. | Defendants argued resentencing required considering Proposition 57, so transfer was within scope. | Within scope: on remand the trial court may consider the entire sentencing scheme (including Prop. 57 effects) and thus could transfer for a juvenile-court transfer hearing. |
| Could the juvenile court hold a transfer hearing though defendants had aged out (>25)? | People argued juvenile court lacked jurisdiction over persons who have aged out, so transfer was improper. | Defendants argued juvenile court has initial jurisdiction under Welf. & Inst. Code §602 because offenses occurred when they were minors, and thus can hold transfer hearings. | Proper: juvenile court has initial jurisdiction to adjudicate acts committed as juveniles and to hold transfer hearings under §707; aging out does not defeat jurisdiction to adjudicate the earlier offense. |
| Did Lara require remand to juvenile court for transfer hearings in these circumstances? | People distinguished Lara because the Lara defendant was still within juvenile-age range when remand occurred. | Defendants relied on Lara’s remedy (remand to juvenile court) and Proposition 57’s retroactivity to require transfer hearings here as well. | Lara’s remedial framework applies; given Prop. 57’s retroactivity and defendants’ entitlement to its benefits, remand/transfer to juvenile court for transfer hearings was appropriate even though defendants had aged out. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Superior Court (Lara), 4 Cal.5th 299 (Cal. 2018) (Prop. 57 retroactive; remedy: remand to juvenile court for transfer hearing)
- People v. Gutierrez, 58 Cal.4th 1354 (Cal. 2014) (sentencing courts must consider youth-related factors)
- Peracchi v. Superior Court, 30 Cal.4th 1245 (Cal. 2003) (remand for resentencing does not necessarily vacate original sentence)
- People v. Cervantes, 9 Cal.App.5th 569 (Cal. Ct. App. 2017) (remand to juvenile court for transfer hearing before retry/resentencing)
- People v. Vela, 21 Cal.App.5th 1099 (Cal. Ct. App. 2018) (conditional reversal and remand to juvenile court for transfer hearing)
- People v. Lo, 42 Cal.App.4th 189 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996) (postjudgment orders affecting the People’s rights are appealable)
- People v. Buckhalter, 26 Cal.4th 20 (Cal. 2001) (original sentence remains in effect pending remand unless changed)
- In re Arthur N., 16 Cal.3d 226 (Cal. 1976) (juvenile court’s continuing jurisdiction ends at statutory age limits)