People v. G.A.

Sep 1, 2026
E087756

OPINION

APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Lynn M. Poncin, Judge. Affirmed.

John L. Staley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

I.
INTRODUCTION

Defendant and appellant G.A. appeals from an order transferring his case from juvenile court to adult court following a transfer hearing. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 801, subd. (a).) Appointed counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), requesting this court to conduct an independent review of the record. In addition, G.A. has had an opportunity to file a supplemental brief with this court and has not done so. Finding no arguable errors that would result in a disposition more favorable to G.A., we will affirm the order transferring G.A,’s case to adult court.

II.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A. Factual Background1

Around 12:00 a.m. on January 2, 1999, 14-year-old Marisol Luna and her cousins, 13-year-old Rocio G. and 14-year-old Nancy G., met Rocio‘s boyfriend, 16 or 17-year-old Danny S. and his friend, 16-year-old Aaron S., by the cousins’ home in Fontana. Both Danny and Aaron were members of the Diablos gang.

As the group was walking on Hibiscus Street, a brown Honda Accord with tinted windows drove up to them. The Honda belonged to Daniel Martinez, a member of The Marijuana Klikas or TMK gang, a rival gang. The Honda stopped by Aaron. The rear driver‘s side window rolled down and a male in the back seat asked, “Where are you from?” Aaron responded, “Diablos.” Then, someone from the car responded “f-k you,” and the person in the back seat fired six or eight bullets from a .357 magnum revolver. Two bullets hit Marisol; she died. A couple of bullets hit Aaron, but he survived with a permanent limp. Another bullet passed through Nancy‘s sweater. The Honda drove away after the shooting.

About one hour after the shooting, Daniel Martinez, George Vargas and G.A. went to the home of Daniel‘s brother, Joaquin Martinez. Like Daniel, George, Joaquin and G.A. were also TMK members. Daniel and George told Joaquin about the shooting, including the fact that G.A. was the shooter. G.A. was present during the conversation and made no denials or corrections.

On the same day on January 2, 1999, Jaime Alvarado, another member of the TMK gang, was visiting family members in California. From his mother‘s home, Jaime telephoned Joaquin Martinez. Joaquin and his girlfriend picked Jaime up and drove him to Joaquin‘s apartment in Fontana. George and Daniel were there. Jaime‘s older brother, Oscar Alvarado, had also been a TMK member, and had been shot to death. At Joaquin‘s apartment, George talked about the shooting which had taken place on Hibiscus Street.

Later that day, Jaime, Daniel, Joaquin and George went to Amanda Arista‘s house so that Jaime could visit his brother Oscar‘s children. Amanda is the mother of one of Oscar‘s children. They took Daniel‘s Honda Accord. Guns were hidden under the hood of the car. George told Jaime that one of the guns was used in the shooting on Hibiscus Street. Once they reached Amanda‘s apartment, they opened the hood and took out the guns. George handed Jaime the gun involved in the shooting. They armed themselves because they were afraid of retaliation “pretty much thought something was going to happen” because of the “prior shooting.”

Joaquin Luna, also known as “Flaco,” a member of the South Side Fontana gang, was with Amanda. While there, Jaime lost his temper with Amanda because she “pretty much wasn‘t too happy to see [Jaime] there.” Moreover, Amanda blamed her problems on Jaime‘s brother which made Jaime angry. Jaime then hit Amanda with a gun. At gunpoint, George took Flaco outside the house. Jaime then took Amanda outside. While George was hitting Flaco, his gun went off. Flaco fell to his knees.

Jaime, Daniel, Joaquin and G.A. left the area and went to an abandoned house next to the home of Jaime‘s mother. After police arrived, Jaime and his companions fled. While fleeing, Jaime dropped the gun he had been given.

The next day, Jaime left California. Almost seven months later, Jaime was arrested on suspicion of having committed the shooting on Hibiscus Street. To prove his innocence, Jaime agreed to make a tape-recorded telephone call to G.A. During the telephone call, G.A. admitted he was the shooter.

About a week later, a sheriff‘s deputy played a copy of the tape-recorded telephone conversation for G.A. After G.A. waived his Miranda2 rights, he admitted that he was the shooter. G.A. stated that when he and George saw the group on Hibiscus Street on the night of the shooting, George gave G.A. a gun and he grabbed it. After Aaron said “Diablos,” George told G.A. to shoot.

A gang expert testified that the murder and attempted murder were committed for the benefit of the TMK gang. He explained that the TMK gang would benefit because the shootings would instill fear in other gang members and the community. This would reduce the chance of confrontations between TMK and other gangs. It would also be less likely that other gang members or citizens would testify against TMK gang members.

B. Procedural Background

G.A. was almost 18 years old at the time of the incident.3 As such, a juvenile petition was filed against G.A. in juvenile court. However, on July 22, 1999, the juvenile court found G.A. unfit to be tried under the juvenile court law and transferred the case to adult court.

Following a jury trial, G.A. was convicted of first degree murder (Pen. Code,4 § 187, subd. (a)) and deliberate and premeditated attempted murder (§§ 187, subd. (a)/664). The jury also found true the allegations that the offenses were committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang (§ 186.2, subd. (b)(4)) and that a principal personally used a firearm (§ 12022.53, subds. (b)-(e)(1)). The trial court sentenced G.A. to an aggregate term of 90 years to life. (See Arriaga, supra, E029194.)

On April 5, 2002, this court affirmed the judgment in an unpublished opinion. (Arriaga, supra, E029194.)

On April 19, 2024, G.A. filed a petition for recall of his sentence under section 1170, subdivision (d)(1), which permits anyone who was under the age of 18 at the time of the offense and sentenced to life without the possibility of parole (LWOP) or its functional equivalent to petition for resentencing after 15 years of incarceration.

On October 15, 2024, the People filed an opposition to the petition. And G.A. subsequently filed a reply to the People‘s opposition.

On February 14, 2025, the juvenile court held a hearing on G.A.‘s petition. At that time, the People requested G.A.‘s case be transferred to a court of criminal jurisdiction or adult court. On this same day, a second amended juvenile wardship petition pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 was filed charging G.A. with first degree murder (§ 187, subd. (a)) and attempted murder (§§ 187, subd. (a)/664). The second amended petition also alleged that G.A. used a firearm in the commission of the offenses within the meaning of section 12022.53, subdivision (b).

On October 28, 2025, the probation department filed a report as to whether G.A. should be considered an eligible and suitable subject under juvenile court law or whether the matter should be transferred to adult court. The probation officer analyzed the criteria pursuant to section 707 of the Welfare and Institutions Code. Specifically, the probation officer analyzed, among others, the degree of criminal sophistication exhibited by G.A.; G.A.‘s age, maturity, intellectual capacity, and physical, mental, and emotional health at the time of the offense; G.A.‘s impetuosity or failure to appreciate risks and consequences of criminal behavior; effect familial, adult, peer pressure on G.A.‘s actions and community environment; existence of childhood trauma; G.A.‘s involvement in the child welfare or foster care system; and status of youth as a victim of human trafficking, sexual abuse, or sexual battery on G.A.‘s criminal sophistication; whether G.A. can be rehabilitated prior to the expiration of the juvenile court‘s jurisdiction; G.A.‘s previous delinquent history; success of previous attempts of the juvenile court to rehabilitate G.A.; the circumstances and gravity of the offense; G.A.‘s actual behavior; G.A.‘s mental state at time of offense; and G.A.‘s involvement in the crime. The probation officer recommended the court find G.A. is eligible for consideration by the juvenile court.

On December 19, 2025, the trial court held the transfer hearing. At that time Probation Officer Eduardo Fornes testified regarding the comprehensive risk assessment and his findings in his probation report. Fornes was a probation officer with the San Bernardino County Probation Department and was assigned to the central juvenile investigation unit. He wrote the transfer hearing report for G.A.‘s case. Prior to writing his report, Fornes reviewed the police reports from the 1999 criminal offense, G.A.‘s C-file from prison, and his interview with G.A. Fornes explained the term ARISE refers to a program titled A Restorative Integration for Successful Engagement. ARISE is the probation department‘s secure treatment facility for juvenile offenders. It is designed for the most serious offenders if they can be treated before the expiration of juvenile court jurisdiction. Fornes concluded that G.A. was legally eligible for commitment to ARISE, but was not suitable.

Fornes also reviewed the five factors in Welfare and Institutions Code section 707, subdivision (a), for whether a juvenile case should be transferred to adult court. For factor two, G.A. demonstrated meaningful personal growth while in prison. G.A. had engaged in educational programs, vocational assignments, and self-help groups. G.A. was motivated and had a positive attitude. G.A. was offered programs and services prior to the commission of the offenses in 1999 and had completed an intensive supervision program entitled SUCCESS prior to the 1999 offenses. G.A. was dropped from a number of programs in prison between 2022 and 2024 due to a lack of commitment. G.A. had informed Fornes that he had dropped out of the gang lifestyle in 2016. Fornes noted the juvenile court only had two years of jurisdiction remaining if G.A.‘s case stayed in juvenile court. Fornes believed two years was not sufficient time to provide G.A. with all the services he needed to successfully reintegrate into society and noted that G.A. would be referred to the adult day reporting center given his current age of 44. Fornes also explained that G.A. had complex needs given that he had been in prison for over 25 years and that parole services would be better equipped to support G.A.‘s complex needs.

After the trial court admitted relevant exhibits into evidence, including a December 7, 2023, parole hearing transcript, and heard arguments by the parties, the trial court took the matter under submission.

On January 27, 2026, the trial court issued a written ruling granting the People‘s motion to transfer G.A.‘s case to a court of criminal jurisdiction. The court reached the following conclusions: (1) the degree of G.A.‘s criminal sophistication weighed against transferring the case to adult court; (2) the likelihood that G.A. could be rehabilitated within the time available for juvenile court jurisdiction weighed in favor of transferring the case to adult court; (3) G.A.‘s prior delinquent behavior weighed against transfer to adult court; (4) the prior attempts at rehabilitation weighed in favor of transferring the case to adult court; and (5) the circumstances and gravity of the offenses weighed in favor of transferring the case to adult court. Based on the five criterion in Welfare and Institutions Code section 707, subdivision (a), the court found the People had met its burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence that G.A. was not amenable to rehabilitation prior to the expiration of the jurisdiction of the juvenile court. This appeal followed.

III.
DISCUSSION

After G.A. appealed, this court appointed counsel to represent him. Upon examination of the record, counsel has filed a brief under the authority of Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738, setting forth a statement of the case, a summary of the facts and potential arguable issue of whether the trial court erred by granting the People‘s motion to transfer G.A.‘s case to adult court.

We offered G.A. an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, and he has not done so.

An appellate court conducts a review of the entire record to determine whether the record reveals any issues which, if resolved favorably to the defendant, would result in reversal or modification of the judgment. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pp. 441-442; People v. Feggans (1967) 67 Cal.2d 444, 447-448; Anders, supra, 386 U.S. at p. 744; see People v. Johnson (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 106, 109-112.)

Having undertaken an independent examination of the entire record for potential error pursuant to Wende and People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we find no arguable errors that are favorable to G.A.. Accordingly, we will affirm the order.

IV.
DISPOSITION

The order transferring the matter to adult criminal court is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

CODRINGTON

J.

We concur:

RAMIREZ

P. J.

MILLER

J.

Notes

1
The factual background is taken from this court‘s nonpublished opinion from G.A.‘s prior appeal in case No. E029194. (See People v. Arriaga (April 5, 2002, E029194) [nonpub. opn.] (Arriaga).)
3
The offense occurred on January 2, 1999, and G.A. was born on February 4, 1981.
4
All future statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise stated.