28 F.4th 1320
9th Cir.2022Background:
- Edwin Mendez was charged in a juvenile information under the Juvenile Delinquency Act (JDA) for multiple acts of juvenile delinquency, including a RICO conspiracy, based on conduct occurring before his 18th birthday.
- A federal grand jury later returned a Second Superseding Indictment (SSI) charging Mendez, now an adult, with RICO conspiracy that alleges both pre- and post-18 conduct.
- The government moved to dismiss the juvenile information (declining to pursue the juvenile murder-related charges) and the district court dismissed the JDA case without a transfer hearing.
- Mendez moved to dismiss the SSI as barred by the JDA because the government had invoked juvenile proceedings and did not complete the §5032 transfer process; the district court denied the motion.
- Mendez appealed interlocutorily; the Ninth Circuit found it had jurisdiction under the collateral-order doctrine and considered whether a majority-spanning conspiracy is excluded from the JDA.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed: where a defendant continues to participate in a conspiracy after turning 18 (ratifying pre-majority conduct), the offense becomes a continuing adult crime and the JDA’s transfer provisions do not bar adult prosecution.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Interlocutory jurisdiction to hear appeal | Government: order denying dismissal is reviewable under collateral-order doctrine | Mendez: appeal should wait for final judgment | Court: collateral-order doctrine applies; interlocutory appeal allowed |
| Effect of filing then dismissing JDA information without §5032 transfer | Government: dismissal does not bar adult prosecution when the charged offense continued after 18 | Mendez: once government invoked JDA by filing information, it had to complete transfer or JDA bars adult prosecution | Court: JDA is procedural for acts of juvenile delinquency; it does not bar adult prosecution of a continuing offense that spans majority |
| Whether RICO conspiracy alleged is an "act of juvenile delinquency" | Government: majority-spanning conspiracy is not an act of juvenile delinquency if post-18 participation is alleged | Mendez: RICO conspiracy was charged in the JDA info and thus JDA protections attach unless transferred | Court: continuing-conspiracy/ratification doctrine applies; post-18 participation converts the offense to an adult continuing crime, so JDA inapplicable |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Camez, 839 F.3d 871 (9th Cir. 2016) (ratification/continuing-crime analysis permitting use of pre-18 acts in adult RICO prosecutions)
- United States v. Wong, 40 F.3d 1347 (2d Cir. 1994) (RICO conspiracy continuing; JDA inapplicable where conduct continued after 18)
- United States v. Cruz, 805 F.2d 1464 (11th Cir. 1986) (adult jurisdiction where evidence supports post-18 continuation of conspiracy)
- United States v. Delatorre, 157 F.3d 1205 (10th Cir. 1998) (majority-spanning continuing crimes need not be processed under JDA)
- United States v. Smith, 851 F.2d 706 (4th Cir. 1988) (contrasting precedent where adult indictment duplicated completed juvenile offenses)
- United States v. Blinder, 10 F.3d 1468 (9th Cir. 1993) (pleading-stage review presumes indictment allegations true)
- Abney v. United States, 431 U.S. 651 (1977) (final-judgment rule in criminal appeals)
- Midland Asphalt Corp. v. United States, 489 U.S. 794 (1989) (collateral-order doctrine principles)