People v. Vang CA5
F081482
| Cal. Ct. App. | Jul 13, 2021Background
- In 1996 Vang (age 16 at the time) participated in a gang-related drive-by shooting that killed a 3-year-old and wounded three adults.
- In 1998 Vang was convicted of first degree murder, multiple attempted murders, and related gang and firearm enhancements; he received 25 years-to-life plus multiple consecutive life terms and a 59-year aggregate determinate term for enhancements.
- The 2001 appeal largely affirmed the convictions; one attempted-murder count was reversed and the trial court, on remand, reinstated the original sentences after denying new-trial motions.
- In 2020 Vang sought a juvenile transfer (fitness) hearing under Proposition 57 and Senate Bill No. 1391, arguing he should be treated as a juvenile because he was 16 at the time of the offenses.
- The trial court denied the transfer request, concluding Proposition 57 and SB 1391 were not retroactive to final cases and SB 1391 applied only to offenders who were 14 or 15 at the time of the offense; the court did grant a Franklin hearing instead.
- On appeal Vang’s counsel filed a Wende brief; the Court of Appeal performed an independent review, found no arguable issues, and affirmed the denial of the juvenile transfer hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Vang is entitled to a juvenile transfer (fitness) hearing under Prop 57 and SB 1391 | Prop 57 and SB 1391 do not apply retroactively to cases final before their effective dates; SB 1391 only covers offenders who were 14 or 15 | Vang contends the post‑conviction statutory changes and Lara decisions entitle him to a juvenile fitness hearing because he was 16 at offense | Denied: statutes not retroactive to final judgments and SB 1391 applies only to 14- and 15‑year‑olds, so Vang is not entitled to a fitness hearing |
| Whether a Franklin hearing was required because Vang was under 18 at the time of the offenses | People did not oppose holding a Franklin hearing | Vang sought a youthful offender (Franklin) hearing in anticipation of parole | Granted: trial court ordered a Franklin hearing |
| Whether appellate counsel’s filing of a Wende brief required further briefing or relief | People argued no procedural defect; court should perform independent review | Vang could file a supplemental brief but did not | Court conducted independent review, found no arguable issues, and affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Vang, 87 Cal.App.4th 554 (Cal. Ct. App.) (prior appeal affirming most convictions)
- People v. Superior Court (Lara), 4 Cal.5th 299 (Cal. 2018) (Prop 57 retroactivity limited to nonfinal cases)
- People v. Franklin, 63 Cal.4th 261 (Cal. 2016) (procedures for youthful offender/parole hearings)
- C.S. v. Superior Court, 29 Cal.App.5th 1009 (Cal. Ct. App.) (SB 1391 applies only to those who were 14 or 15 at the time of the offense)
- People v. Wende, 25 Cal.3d 436 (Cal. 1979) (appellate counsel may file brief summarizing issues and request independent appellate review)