People v. Superior Court of Riverside County
9 Cal. App. 5th 753
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- In 2016 the voters passed Proposition 57, which removed prosecutors' power to directly file juveniles in adult criminal court and instead requires the People to move to transfer a minor to adult court and the juvenile court to decide transfer under Welfare & Institutions Code § 707(a).
- Before Prop 57 took effect, the People had directly filed felony charges against Pablo Ullisses Lara, Jr. in superior (adult) court and had conducted a preliminary hearing and filed an information.
- After Prop 57, real party moved for a fitness/transfer hearing in juvenile court; the trial court granted the motion and stayed its order briefly to permit appellate review by the People.
- The People sought emergency writ relief in multiple companion petitions arguing Prop 57 could not be applied retroactively to cases already directly filed in adult court; this Court consolidated consideration and used the Palma accelerated notice procedure to solicit informal responses.
- The Court (1) addressed whether its expedited Palma procedure could produce a written opinion that "creates a cause" and constitutes law of the case even when denying a petition, and (2) decided whether requiring a juvenile-court transfer hearing under Prop 57 was an impermissible retroactive application.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Real Party) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Court of Appeal could use an accelerated Palma notice, deny the petition without issuing an alternative writ, and thereby create a "cause" and law of the case | Palma procedure cannot produce a binding "cause" when the court denies a petition absent issuance of an alternative writ or order to show cause; denial should be treated as a summary denial | The court followed Palma notice, solicited and considered briefs, published a reasoned opinion and explicitly stated it was creating a cause; that process suffices | The court concluded it had authority to take jurisdiction, issue a written opinion denying the petition on the merits, and thereby create a cause and law of the case when the expedited Palma procedure and related safeguards are used in exigent, appropriate cases |
| Whether requiring a juvenile-court transfer hearing under Prop 57 to determine whether a minor filed in adult court may be tried there is an impermissible retroactive application | Prop 57 cannot be applied to cases already directly filed in adult court because doing so would attach new legal consequences to past acts (direct filing) and thus be retroactive | Proposition 57 governs the procedure for future trials; requiring a juvenile judge to decide transfer is prospective because trials have not yet occurred and no vested right is impaired | The court held Prop 57 may be applied prospectively here: directing a juvenile-court transfer hearing is procedural, not retroactive in the forbidden sense, so the trial court correctly ordered a fitness/transfer hearing under Prop 57 |
Key Cases Cited
- Palma v. U.S. Industrial Fasteners, Inc., 36 Cal.3d 171 (Cal. 1984) (authorizes peremptory writ in first instance with notice and limited briefing)
- Kowis v. Howard, 3 Cal.4th 888 (Cal. 1992) (summary denial of writ ordinarily does not create law of the case)
- Lewis v. Superior Court, 19 Cal.4th 1232 (Cal. 1999) (recognizes peremptory writs in first instance under limited circumstances and discusses oral-argument requirements)
- Bay Dev., Ltd. v. Superior Court, 50 Cal.3d 1012 (Cal. 1990) (Court of Appeal opinion denying writ after full consideration is not the same as a summary denial)
- Frisk v. Superior Court, 200 Cal.App.4th 402 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) (discusses when an appellate denial after Palma-type procedure may be treated as a cause)
- Tapia v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.3d 282 (Cal. 1991) (statutes governing trial procedure apply prospectively to future trials regardless of when underlying offense occurred)
- In re Estrada, 63 Cal.2d 740 (Cal. 1965) (legislative reductions of punishment generally apply to nonfinal judgments)
- People v. Grant, 20 Cal.4th 150 (Cal. 1999) (retroactivity test: whether statute attaches new legal consequences to completed events)
- Strauch v. Superior Court, 107 Cal.App.3d 45 (Cal. Ct. App. 1980) (procedural amendments applied prospectively where vested rights unaffected)
- People v. Hajjaj, 50 Cal.4th 1184 (Cal. 2010) (addresses when a case is "brought to trial" for procedural deadlines)