People v. Superior Court of Kings Cnty.
251 Cal. Rptr. 3d 158
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2019Background
- In 2018 the Legislature enacted Senate Bill No. 1391, effective Jan. 1, 2019, which bars prosecutors from seeking transfer of 14- and 15-year-olds to adult criminal court except when the minor committed a listed serious offense and was not apprehended before juvenile jurisdiction expired.
- I.R. (15 at the time of the 2014 homicide) was initially charged in criminal court; after Proposition 57 (2016) suspended direct filing, his prosecution was certified to juvenile court and a §602 wardship petition was filed.
- At a §707 transfer hearing the juvenile court transferred I.R. to criminal court on the homicide and a later assault (committed at age 17); criminal proceedings followed and the homicide jury deadlocked.
- After retrial was set, SB 1391 took effect; I.R. moved to dismiss for lack of criminal‑court jurisdiction. The juvenile court denied a later transfer request under the new statute, holding SB 1391 barred transfer on the murder charge because I.R. was 15 when the murder occurred and was apprehended before juvenile jurisdiction ended.
- The Kings County District Attorney petitioned for writ relief, arguing SB 1391 (1) unconstitutionally amended or conflicted with Propositions 21 and 57, (2) is vague, (3) should not apply retroactively, and (4) the murder charge could be transferred based on a separate felony committed when I.R. was 17.
Issues
| Issue | District Attorney's Argument | I.R.'s / Respondent's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether SB 1391 unconstitutionally amends Proposition 57 | SB 1391 conflicts with and impermissibly amends Prop. 57 by removing the juvenile judge's transfer role | SB 1391 is a permissible legislative change that does not conflict with Prop. 57 as interpreted in prior authority | Court rejects DA; follows T.D. — SB 1391 does not unconstitutionally amend Prop. 57 |
| Whether SB 1391 unconstitutionally amends Proposition 21 | SB 1391 amended Prop. 21 without 2/3 legislative vote or voter approval | Prop. 21's direct‑file provisions were effectively repealed by Prop. 57; SB 1391 regulates post‑Prop.57 law | Court holds SB 1391 is not an unconstitutional amendment of Prop. 21 |
| Vagueness challenge to SB 1391 | Statutory language creates confusion about when 14- and 15‑year‑olds can be tried as adults and may encourage selective enforcement | Statute gives adequate notice to a person of ordinary intelligence and does not authorize arbitrary enforcement; DA lacks standing as I.R. was apprehended early | Court rejects vagueness claim on standing and merits grounds |
| Retroactivity of SB 1391 | SB 1391 should not apply retroactively to offenses committed before its effective date absent explicit language | SB 1391 is ameliorative to juveniles and should be applied retroactively consistent with Lara | Court holds SB 1391 applies retroactively to juveniles whose judgments were not final when it took effect |
| Whether a later (age 17) felony permits transfer of earlier (age 15) murder to adult court | Because assault at 17 was transferred, all pending petitions (including the murder) should go to criminal court under §707.01 | §707.01 requires that, to transfer all pending petitions, the minor must have been 16+ at time of the particular offense or meet other statutory conditions; SB 1391 bars transfer of the age‑15 homicide | Court holds murder cannot be transferred based on the separate age‑17 offense; homicide must be adjudicated in juvenile court under SB 1391 |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Superior Court (Lara), 4 Cal.5th 299 (California Supreme Court) (Proposition 57 requires judicial transfer hearings; ameliorative juvenile provisions apply retroactively)
- Manduley v. Superior Court, 27 Cal.4th 537 (California Supreme Court) (background on juvenile vs. criminal court jurisdictional framework)
- People v. Superior Court (T.D.), 38 Cal.App.5th 360 (Cal. Ct. App.) (court's prior holding that SB 1391 does not unconstitutionally amend Prop. 57)
- People v. Superior Court (Alexander C.), 34 Cal.App.5th 994 (Cal. Ct. App.) (analysis of Prop. 57's effect on direct filing and transfer procedures)
- People v. Superior Court (Pearson), 48 Cal.4th 564 (California Supreme Court) (statutory amendment constraints under Proposition 21's uncodified provision)
- United States v. Batchelder, 442 U.S. 114 (U.S. Supreme Court) (fair‑notice vagueness standard for criminal statutes)
- City of Chicago v. Morales, 527 U.S. 41 (U.S. Supreme Court) (vagueness doctrine: notice and arbitrary enforcement concerns)