People v. Ramirez
246 Cal. Rptr. 3d 897
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2019Background
- Ramirez and Armendariz committed two gang-related murders at age 16; both were convicted in adult court and originally given very long sentences.
- This court previously reversed the sentences as cruel and unusual given their youth, remanding for resentencing under People v. Gutierrez.
- After remand, Proposition 57 was enacted, eliminating direct filing in adult court and requiring a juvenile-court transfer hearing before adult prosecution for minors.
- Defendants moved to have the resentencing matter remanded to juvenile court for a transfer hearing under Proposition 57 and People v. Superior Court (Lara).
- The trial court ordered transfer to juvenile court; the District Attorney appealed. The appellate court considered (1) whether the transfer order was appealable, (2) whether transfer exceeded the remittitur, and (3) whether juvenile court had jurisdiction to hold a transfer hearing though defendants had aged out.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Appealability of transfer order | DA: transfer order is appealable as post-judgment affecting substantial rights of the People | Defs: no judgment exists after sentence reversal, so order not appealable | Transfer order is appealable under Penal Code §1238(a)(5); original sentence remained operative until remand proceedings disturbed it |
| Scope of remittitur: could trial court transfer the case? | DA: remittitur only directed resentencing; transfer exceeded remand scope | Defs: remand for resentencing allows consideration of all sentencing-affecting changes, including Prop 57 | Remand for resentencing authorized consideration of Proposition 57 effects; transfer to juvenile court for a transfer hearing was within scope |
| Juvenile court jurisdiction to hold transfer hearing where defendants aged out (>25) | DA: juvenile court lacks jurisdiction over persons who have aged out; transfer improper | Defs: juvenile court has initial jurisdiction under §602 because offenses occurred when minors; it can hold transfer hearings even if defendants aged out of continuing jurisdiction | Juvenile court has initial jurisdiction under §602 to hold transfer hearings for acts committed as minors; transfer was proper despite defendants having aged out |
| Remedy required by Proposition 57 and Lara | DA: remedy in Lara involved younger defendants; Lara didn’t decide aged-out scenario | Defs: Lara governs and requires remand to juvenile court for transfer hearings to effectuate Prop 57 retroactivity | Lara’s remedy (conditional remand to juvenile court for transfer hearing) applies; trial court properly transferred the matter to juvenile court to implement Proposition 57 |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Superior Court (Lara), 4 Cal.5th 299 (Cal. 2018) (Prop. 57 applies retroactively; remedy is conditional 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)
- In re Estrada, 63 Cal.2d 740 (Cal. 1965) (retroactive effect of ameliorative criminal statutes)
- In re Arthur N., 16 Cal.3d 226 (Cal. 1976) (juvenile court’s continuing jurisdiction generally ends when ward reaches statutory age)
- Rucker v. Superior Court, 75 Cal.App.3d 197 (Cal. Ct. App. 1977) (juvenile court jurisdiction is based on age at time of offense)
- People v. Lo, 42 Cal.App.4th 189 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996) (post-judgment orders affecting the People’s substantial rights are appealable)
- People v. Cervantes, 9 Cal.App.5th 569 (Cal. Ct. App. 2017) (remand to juvenile court for transfer hearing prior to retrial or resentencing)
- People v. Vela, 21 Cal.App.5th 1099 (Cal. Ct. App. 2018) (conditional reversal with juvenile-court transfer hearing; re‑instatement if juvenile court would have transferred)