People v. Vela
21 Cal. App. 5th 1099
| Cal. Ct. App. 5th | 2018Background
- Defendant Adrian Vela, age 16 at the time, was directly charged in adult criminal court for gang-related murder and attempted murder; jury convicted and found firearm and gang enhancements true.
- Prosecutor had directly filed charges in criminal court under the pre-Proposition 57 regime (discretionary direct filing allowed for certain minors).
- While appeal was pending, voters approved Proposition 57, which eliminated prosecutors' discretionary direct filing and requires a juvenile court judge to hold a transfer (fitness) hearing before a minor may be tried and sentenced in adult court.
- The appellate court considered whether Proposition 57 (and later SB 620 amending firearm enhancement statutes) applies retroactively to cases not yet final on appeal.
- Court conditionally reversed: remanded to juvenile court for a transfer hearing. If juvenile court would have transferred Vela to adult court, convictions reinstated and defendant resentenced (with discretion to strike firearm enhancements under SB 620); if not, convictions become juvenile adjudications and juvenile disposition follows.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Proposition 57's transfer-hearing requirement applies retroactively to cases not final on appeal | AG: Estrada retroactivity applies only where statute unambiguously reduces punishment; Prop 57 does not do that | Vela: Electorate intended ameliorative rehabilitation benefits to apply retroactively to eligible minors | Prop 57 applies retroactively; remand for juvenile transfer hearing (conditional reversal) |
| Remedy if retroactivity applies | AG: Any error is harmless given facts; convictions should stand | Vela: Convictions should be reversed or remanded for transfer hearing | Court preserves jury convictions but orders limited remand: juvenile transfer hearing; if transferred, convictions reinstated and resentencing; if not, treat as juvenile adjudications |
| Whether SB 620 amendments to firearm enhancements (§§12022.5, 12022.53) apply retroactively | AG: Conceded retroactivity for nonfinal judgments | Vela: Entitled to benefit of ability to dismiss/strike enhancements on resentencing | SB 620 applies retroactively; sentencing court may strike/dismiss enhancements on resentencing |
| Scope of appellate court's relief (retrial/disposition) | AG: No need for new hearing; harmless error | Vela: Requires full vacatur and juvenile disposition | Court orders conditional reversal and limited remand for transfer hearing, not retrial; preserves jury findings pending transfer result |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Estrada, 63 Cal.2d 740 (1965) (ameliorative statute presumptively applies to nonfinal cases unless contrary intent)
- People v. Francis, 71 Cal.2d 66 (1969) (Estrada principle applies where statutory change vests sentencing discretion that could benefit defendant)
- People v. Brown, 54 Cal.4th 314 (2012) (distinguishing retroactivity when statute affects future conduct incentives rather than penalties)
- Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012) (juvenile sentencing requires consideration of youth-related mitigating factors)
- Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010) (juveniles cannot receive LWOP for nonhomicide offenses)
- People v. Superior Court (Lara), 4 Cal.5th 299 (2018) (California Supreme Court holding juvenile transfer provisions of Prop 57 retroactive to nonfinal cases)
- People v. Cervantes, 9 Cal.App.5th 569 (2017) (discussed retroactivity of Prop 57; addressed transfer hearing on remand)