34 Cal.App.5th 994
Cal. Ct. App.2019Background
- Proposition 57 (2016) eliminated prosecutors’ ability to direct-file most cases against juveniles 14 and older and required a juvenile court judge to decide transfers to adult criminal court.
- SB 1391 (2018, effective Jan 1, 2019) forbids transfer of 14- and 15-year-old offenders to adult criminal court in almost all cases; Legislature declared SB 1391 consistent with Proposition 57.
- Alexander C. committed crimes in 2011 at age 14; originally direct-filed under prior law, convicted, and later had some convictions reversed; remanded for a Proposition 57 transfer hearing because his judgment was not final when Prop. 57 passed.
- While awaiting the juvenile transfer hearing, SB 1391 took effect; Alexander moved to dismiss the DA’s transfer motion under SB 1391; juvenile court terminated the transfer proceeding.
- Solano County District Attorney petitioned for writ of mandate asking court to invalidate SB 1391 as inconsistent with Proposition 57; Attorney General and Alexander defended the statute.
- The Court of Appeal denied the petition, holding SB 1391 is a valid legislative amendment that is consistent with and furthers Proposition 57.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (DA) | Defendant's Argument (State/Alexander) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether SB 1391 is a valid amendment to Prop. 57 | SB 1391 is inconsistent with Prop. 57 and therefore an invalid amendment | SB 1391 is consistent with and furthers Prop. 57’s intent; Legislature may amend Prop. 57 accordingly | SB 1391 is a valid amendment; petition denied |
| Whether Prop. 57’s intent prohibits further limiting transfer of 14–15 year olds | Voters intended to preserve prosecutor-initiated prosecution of some 14–15 year olds | Prop. 57’s high‑level purposes emphasize rehabilitation and judge-made transfer decisions; SB 1391 furthers those purposes | Court rejects DA’s narrow reading; Prop. 57’s intent is broader and SB 1391 aligns with it |
| Whether drafting history of Prop. 57 bars SB 1391 | Omitted language in Prop. 57 drafters shows they rejected a SB 1391-like provision | Drafting history does not change the initiative’s broad purposes or bar later consistent amendments | Court finds drafting changes irrelevant to the question of consistency |
| Whether conflict with prior Prop. 21 invalidates SB 1391 | SB 1391 conflicts with Proposition 21’s direct-file provisions | Prop. 21’s relevant provisions were repealed by Prop. 57; SB 1391 must be judged against Prop. 57 | No conflict; Prop. 57 supersedes Prop. 21 and SB 1391 does not undermine Prop. 57 |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Superior Court (Lara), 4 Cal.5th 299 (2018) (held Proposition 57 applies retroactively to nonfinal judgments and described Prop. 57’s transfer framework)
- Amwest Surety Ins. Co. v. Wilson, 11 Cal.4th 1243 (1995) (articulated standard for judicial review of legislative amendments to initiatives: uphold if any reasonable construction shows the amendment furthers initiative’s purposes)
- Brown v. Superior Court, 63 Cal.4th 335 (2016) (described Proposition 57’s subject matter and role in undoing prior direct-file scheme)
- Coleman v. Schwarzenegger, 922 F.Supp.2d 882 (E.D. Cal. 2009) (federal court orders addressing prison crowding referenced in Prop. 57’s intent)
- J.N. v. Superior Court, 23 Cal.App.5th 706 (2018) (discussed Proposition 57’s repeal of Proposition 21’s direct-file procedure)
- People v. Cervantes, 9 Cal.App.5th 569 (2017) (explained Proposition 57 was designed to undo Proposition 21)