People v. Superior Court of Riverside Cnty.
12 Cal. App. 5th 687
| Cal. Ct. App. 5th | 2016Background
- In Feb 2012 the People directly filed felony charges in adult court against Jeremy Walker (then 17) under former Welf. & Inst. Code §707(d); he was convicted, sentenced to 80 years to life, and the conviction was reversed on appeal in May 2015; remittitur issued Sept. 2015 and retrial awaited.
- Proposition 57 (Nov. 8, 2016; effective Nov. 9, 2016) eliminated prosecutors’ authority to directly file juvenile cases in adult court and required juvenile-court fitness hearings prior to transfer under amended Welf. & Inst. Code §§602, 707.
- Walker moved in Nov. 2016 to transfer his pending, previously direct-filed adult case to juvenile court under Prop. 57; the trial court granted the motion and stayed to allow appellate review.
- The People petitioned for writ relief; the California Supreme Court issued an order to show cause and heard argument.
- The Supreme Court held Prop. 57 does not apply to cases properly direct-filed in adult court before Prop. 57’s effective date and directed the trial court to vacate the transfer order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Walker) | Defendant's Argument (People) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Prop. 57 applies retroactively to cases the People directly filed in adult court before Prop. 57's effective date | Prop. 57 should apply retroactively to awaiting-retrial direct-filed cases; policy and ballot materials show intent and ameliorative purpose | Voters did not clearly intend retroactive application; statutes are presumptively prospective | Prop. 57 does not apply retroactively to cases properly filed in adult court before its effective date; trial court's transfer order was erroneous |
| Whether Estrada inference of retroactivity applies (i.e., ameliorative criminal-law changes apply to nonfinal judgments) | Estrada supports retroactivity because Prop. 57 is ameliorative and reduces juvenile exposure to adult punishment | Estrada is inapplicable: Prop. 57 does not reduce the penalty for a particular crime and raises procedural complexities that justify prospective application | Estrada does not apply; Prop. 57 is not a simple mitigation of penalty and may legitimately be limited to prospective effect |
| Whether applying Prop. 57 prospectively nonetheless required transfer (i.e., is transfer a procedural change that can be applied because trial/retrial had not yet occurred) | Trial had not yet occurred post-remittitur, so applying Prop. 57 is prospective and permissible | The regulated conduct is the filing of charges; that event was complete long before Prop. 57, so applying it now is retroactive | Application to invalidate a prior lawful direct filing and force transfer is retroactive and impermissible under Tapia and progeny |
| Whether §602 (as amended) divested adult court of jurisdiction over such pending cases | §602 places minors within juvenile-court jurisdiction upon enactment, so adult court lost authority | §602 does not state exclusive jurisdiction nor oust adult-division jurisdiction for cases lawfully commenced earlier under prior law | §602 does not strip adult court of jurisdiction for cases properly filed prior to Prop. 57; adult division retains authority |
| Whether refusing retroactive application violates equal protection | Differential treatment based on filing/commitment date denies similarly situated juveniles equal protection | Date-based classification is rationally related to legitimate interests (judicial economy, reliance on prior law) | No equal protection violation; prospective application has a rational basis |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Estrada, 63 Cal.2d 740 (Cal. 1965) (ameliorative statutory changes may presumptively apply to nonfinal judgments)
- Tapia v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.3d 282 (Cal. 1991) (distinguishes retrospective vs. prospective application; governs when procedural changes may be applied)
- People v. Brown, 54 Cal.4th 314 (Cal. 2012) (clarifies limits on Estrada inference; do not infer retroactivity from vague language)
- People v. Conley, 63 Cal.4th 646 (Cal. 2016) (refused retroactive application where new law involved substantive disqualifiers and complex scheme)
- People v. Ledesma, 39 Cal.4th 641 (Cal. 2006) (operative date is date of conduct regulated; jury selection rule applied prospectively where selection occurred after law change)
- People v. Cervantes, 9 Cal.App.5th 569 (Cal. Ct. App.) (analyzes Prop. 57; court applied transfer framework differently—discussed and distinguished in this decision)