T.W. v. Superior Court of Contra Costa County
236 Cal. App. 4th 646
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Juvenile T.W. admitted (with counsel) to receiving stolen property (Pen. Code § 496) in Alameda County in July 2013; a related robbery count was dismissed and restitution left open.
- T.W. was transferred to Contra Costa County for disposition; his maximum juvenile term was set at 3 years 4 months.
- After Proposition 47 (Nov. 2014) reclassified certain felonies as misdemeanors, T.W. petitioned under Penal Code § 1170.18 (and Welf. & Inst. Code § 778) to recall his sentence and be resentenced as a misdemeanor.
- Contra Costa prosecutor conceded Prop 47 applies to juveniles but argued (1) T.W. posed an unreasonable risk to public safety and (2) the retroactive resentencing provision does not apply to negotiated plea bargains.
- The juvenile court denied the petition, reasoning the minute order showed a negotiated disposition (dismissal of one count for plea to another) and thus Prop 47 relief was inapplicable.
- T.W. sought writ relief; the Court of Appeal concluded the trial court erred by importing a plea‑bargain disqualifier and ordered the denial vacated and remanded to determine whether resentencing would pose an unreasonable risk to public safety.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does § 1170.18 permit resentencing petitions for convictions obtained by plea? | T.W.: statute’s plain text covers convictions “by trial or plea”; plea bargains do not disqualify petitioners. | DA: retroactive resentencing under Prop 47 excludes negotiated dispositions; minute order indicates a plea bargain here. | The statute unambiguously includes convictions by plea; plea bargains are not a categorical bar. |
| Did the juvenile court properly deny relief based on the minute order indicating a negotiated disposition? | T.W.: minute order alone insufficient to establish ineligibility; absence of transcript leaves doubt. | DA: minute order’s dismissal-for-plea and open restitution are indicia of a negotiated disposition. | Trial court erred to graft a plea‑bargain exception; matter remanded for required public-safety determination. |
| Is Prop 47 applicable to juvenile offenders’ maximum terms? | T.W.: Yes—Welf. & Inst. Code limits juvenile confinement to the adult maximum, so Prop 47 applies. | DA: (conceded) Prop 47 applies to juveniles but reserved public-safety objection. | Court agreed Prop 47 applies to juveniles (trial court had already so held). |
| Is writ relief appropriate rather than appeal given T.W.’s continued custody? | T.W.: appeal is not speedy/adequate because he faces imminent custody time; relief needed immediately. | DA: (implicit) standard appellate process should govern. | Writ issued directing vacatur of denial and remand for public-safety hearing; relief granted in first instance. |
Key Cases Cited
- Palma v. U.S. Industrial Fasteners, 36 Cal.3d 171 (mandamus standards and remedy discussion)
- Ng v. Superior Court, 4 Cal.4th 29 (mandamus review principles)
- Lewis v. Superior Court, 19 Cal.4th 1232 (mandamus jurisdictional guidance)
- People v. Briceno, 34 Cal.4th 451 (statutory/initiative interpretation principles)
- People v. Rivera, 233 Cal.App.4th 1085 (Prop 47 background and application)
- People v. Davis, 234 Cal.App.4th 1001 (Prop 47 purposes and interpretation)
- People v. Saunoa, 139 Cal.App.4th 870 (effect of notice of appeal on jurisdiction)
- Doe v. Harris, 57 Cal.4th 64 (plea agreements do not insulate defendants from subsequent changes in law)