People v. Super. Ct.
D071461
| Cal. Ct. App. | Jun 8, 2017Background
- In 2012 the People directly filed felony charges in adult criminal court against Jeremy Walker for crimes allegedly committed when he was 17; he was convicted, sentenced, that conviction was reversed on appeal, and he awaited retrial when Proposition 57 took effect (Nov. 9, 2016).
- Proposition 57 eliminated prosecutors’ statutory authority to "direct file" juveniles into adult court (repealing former Welf. & Inst. Code § 707(d)) and amended §§ 602 and 707 to require juvenile-court filing and permit prosecutors to move to transfer to adult court only by motion and after a juvenile-court fitness process.
- Walker moved to transfer his pending case from adult court to juvenile court under Proposition 57; the trial court granted the motion and stayed the order to allow appellate review.
- The People sought writ relief, arguing Proposition 57 does not apply retroactively to cases that were properly direct-filed in adult court before its effective date.
- The Court of Appeal (Fourth Appellate District, Division One) held Proposition 57 does not apply to cases already filed in adult court before its effective date, concluded the trial court’s transfer order was an improper retroactive application of the initiative, and directed the trial court to vacate that order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Walker) | Defendant's Argument (People) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Proposition 57 applies retroactively to cases directly filed in adult court before its effective date | Proposition 57 should apply retroactively to pending direct-file cases not yet final; alternatively, the trial court's order is a permissible prospective application because Walker had not yet been retried | Voters did not clearly intend retroactivity; new filing rules govern the filing event and thus cannot be applied to completed filings | No retroactive application; Proposition 57 does not apply to cases properly direct-filed in adult court before its effective date |
| Whether Estrada doctrine compels retroactive application because Proposition 57 is ameliorative | Estrada supports retroactivity for ameliorative changes and thus applies | Proposition 57 is procedural (affects forum/filing), not a reduction of penalty for a particular offense; legitimate reasons exist to apply prospectively | Estrada inapplicable; the measure does not mitigate punishment in the Estrada sense and its logic does not compel retroactivity |
| Whether applying Proposition 57 to Walker was a permissible prospective application (i.e., governs future proceedings) | A retrial or future proceedings should be governed by law in effect at the time they occur; thus a fitness hearing is prospective | The statute regulates the filing event (which was completed pre‑Proposition 57); applying new filing rules to past filings retroactively attaches new legal consequences | Application here was retroactive under Tapia: filing was the regulated conduct and it occurred before Proposition 57, so the transfer order was improper |
| Whether refusing retroactive effect violates equal protection | Differential treatment of similarly situated juveniles (based on filing date) denies equal protection | A rational basis exists (judicial economy, reliance on prior law) for prospective application | No equal protection violation; classification is rationally related to legitimate state interests |
Key Cases Cited
- Manduley v. Superior Court, 27 Cal.4th 537 (2002) (clarifies that § 602's reference to "jurisdiction" contemplates division authority, not subject‑matter jurisdiction)
- Tapia v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.3d 282 (1991) (distinguishes retrospective laws that change substantive consequences from procedural rules governing future trial conduct)
- In re Estrada, 63 Cal.2d 740 (1965) (ameliorative criminal statutes may presumptively apply to nonfinal judgments when they reduce punishment for a particular offense)
- People v. Brown, 54 Cal.4th 314 (2012) (limits Estrada; presumption of retroactivity applies only in specific ameliorative contexts)
- People v. Conley, 63 Cal.4th 646 (2016) (refuses retroactive application where legislative changes create complex disqualifying factors beyond simple sentence reduction)
- People v. Ledesma, 39 Cal.4th 641 (2006) (operative date is the conduct regulated by the statute; jury selection rules applied prospectively because selection had not occurred)
- People v. Sandoval, 41 Cal.4th 825 (2007) (reiterates that procedural changes are not retroactive when applied to proceedings after enactment)
- People v. Rossi, 18 Cal.3d 295 (1976) (Estrada context: complete repeal of criminal sanctions may apply retroactively)
- People v. Wright, 40 Cal.4th 81 (2006) (addresses retroactivity where statutory changes provide new defenses)
- People v. Cervantes, 9 Cal.App.5th 569 (2017) (appellate decision addressing whether fitness hearings are required for cases on remand after Proposition 57; court read § 707 broadly)
- People v. Lara, 9 Cal.App.5th 753 (2017) (appellate decision concluding Proposition 57 could be applied prospectively to require fitness hearings in some pending cases)
- People v. Mendoza, 10 Cal.App.5th 327 (2017) (analyzes retroactivity of Proposition 57 and presumption of prospectivity)