O.G. v. Superior Court of Ventura Cnty.

• Decision Date: 25 February 2021
• Docket Number: S259011
• Citation: 275 Cal.Rptr.3d 406,11 Cal.5th 82,481 P.3d 648
• Court: California Supreme Court
• Parties: O.G., a Minor, etc., Petitioner, v. The SUPERIOR COURT OF VENTURA COUNTY, Respondent; The People, Real Party in Interest.

11 Cal.5th 82

481 P.3d 648

275 Cal.Rptr.3d 406

O.G., a Minor, etc., Petitioner,

v. The SUPERIOR COURT OF VENTURA COUNTY, Respondent;The People, Real Party in Interest.

S259011

Supreme Court of California.

February 25, 2021

Jennifer Hansen, San Diego, and Willard P. Wiksell, Ventura, under appointments by the Supreme Court, for Petitioner.

Susan L. Burrell, L. Richard Braucher, Richmond, Cyn Yamashiro, Inglewood, and Marketa Sims for Pacific Juvenile Defender Center and Independent Juvenile Defender Program Los Angeles County Bar as Amici Curiae on behalf of Petitioner.

Michael C. McMahon, Santa Barbara, for California Public Defenders Association and Todd W. Howeth, Public Defender (Ventura), as Amici Curiae on behalf of Petitioner.

Munger, Tolles & Olson, William D. Temko and Sara A. McDermott, Los Angeles, for Human Rights Watch, Anti-Recidivism Coalition and W. Haywood Burns Institute as Amici Curiae on behalf of Petitioner.

Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Thomas S. Patterson, Assistant Attorney General, Joshua A. Klein, Deputy State Solicitor General, Anthony R. Hakl, Tamar Pachter and Nelson R. Richards, Deputy Attorneys General, for Attorney General as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Petitioner.

Rebecca P. Jones ; Bryan A. Stevenson and Alicia A. D'Addario for The Equal Justice Initiative as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Petitioner.

No appearance for Respondent.

Jeff Rubin, District Attorney (Santa Clara), for California District Attorneys Association as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Respondent and Real Party in Interest.

Gregory D. Totten, District Attorney, Michael D. Schwartz, Chief Assistant District Attorney, Tate McCallister and Michelle Contois, Deputy District Attorneys, for Real Party in Interest.

Keiter Appellate Law and Mitchell Keiter for Amicus Populi as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Real Party in Interest.

Kent S. Scheidegger and Kymberlee C. Stapleton for Criminal Justice Legal Foundation as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Real Party in Interest.

Opinion of the Court by Groban, J.

Proposition 57, passed in the November 2016 general election (Proposition 57), requires prosecutors to commence all cases involving a minor in juvenile court. "Proposition 57 is an ‘ameliorative change[ ] to the criminal law’ " that "the legislative body intended ‘to extend as broadly as possible.’ " ( People v. Superior Court (Lara) (2018) 4 Cal. 5th 299, 309, 228 Cal.Rptr.3d 394, 410 P.3d 22 ( Lara ).) Proposition 57 expressly allowed for amendments that "are consistent with and further the intent of this act ...." (Voter Information Guide, Gen. Elec. (Nov. 8, 2016) text of Prop. 57, § 5, p. 145 (2016 Voter Guide).) As originally enacted, Proposition 57 allowed prosecutors to move to transfer some minors as young as 14 from juvenile court to adult criminal court. Senate Bill No. 1391 (2017–2018 Reg. Sess.) (Senate Bill 1391), enacted in 2018, amended Proposition 57 to prohibit minors under the age of 16 from being transferred to adult criminal court. (See Welf. & Inst. Code, § 707, subd. (a)(1)–(2), as amended by Stats. 2018, ch. 1012, § 1.)

In this case, the Court of Appeal held that Senate Bill 1391 is inconsistent with Proposition 57 and thus invalid ( O.G. v. Superior Court (2019) 40 Cal.App.5th 626, 629, 252 Cal.Rptr.3d 904 ), a holding at odds with every other Court of Appeal opinion to have addressed the issue. We agree with the majority view that Senate Bill 1391 was a permissible amendment to Proposition 57 and we reverse the judgment in this case. Because Proposition 57 expressly permits legislative amendments, we must presume the Legislature acted within its authority and uphold Senate Bill 1391 "if, by any reasonable construction, it can be said that the statute" is consistent with and furthers the intent of Proposition 57. ( Amwest Surety Ins. Co. v. Wilson (1995) 11 Cal.4th 1243, 1256, 48 Cal.Rptr.2d 12, 906 P.2d 1112 ( Amwest ).) While barring the transfer of 14 and 15 year olds to adult court is a change from Proposition 57's statutory provisions, that change is what makes Senate Bill 1391 an amendment to Proposition 57. The amendment is fully consistent with and furthers Proposition 57's fundamental purposes of promoting rehabilitation of youthful offenders and reducing the prison population. We therefore uphold Senate Bill 1391 as a permissible amendment to Proposition 57.

I. BACKGROUND

" ‘Historically, a child could be tried in criminal court only after a judicial determination, before jeopardy attached, that he or she was unfit to be dealt with under juvenile court law.’ " ( Lara , supra , 4 Cal. 5th at p. 305, 228 Cal.Rptr.3d 394, 410 P.3d 22.) In 1961, the Legislature set 16 years old as the minimum age that a minor could be transferred to criminal court. (See Welf. & Inst. Code, former §§ 510, 603, 707, as amended by Stats. 1961, ch. 1616, pp. 3462, 3472, 3485.) The age limit preventing prosecution of those younger than 16 in criminal court remained in place for close to 34 years.

In 1995, California began to move away from the historical rule when the Legislature permitted some 14 and 15 year olds to be transferred to criminal court. (See, e.g., Welf. & Inst. Code, § 707, former subds. (d), (e), as amended by Stats. 1994, ch. 453, § 9.5.) This trend continued over the next five years and culminated with Proposition 21 in 2000. For specified murders and sex crimes, Proposition 21 required prosecutors to charge minors 14 years old or older directly in criminal court. ( Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602, former subd. (b), repealed by Prop. 57, § 4.1.) For other specified serious offenses, Proposition 21 provided prosecutors with discretion to charge minors 14 or older directly in criminal court instead of juvenile court. ( Welf. & Inst. Code, § 707, former subd. (d), repealed by Prop. 57, § 4.2.)

In the years after the passage of Proposition 21, there was "a sea change in penology regarding the relative culpability and rehabilitation possibilities for juvenile offenders, as reflected in several judicial opinions." ( People v. Vela (2018) 21 Cal.App.5th 1099, 1106, 230 Cal.Rptr.3d 880.) These changes were based upon developments in scientific research on adolescent brain development confirming that children are different from adults in ways that are critical to identifying age-appropriate sentences. (See, e.g., Roper v. Simmons (2005) 543 U.S. 551, 569–571, 125 S.Ct. 1183, 161 L.Ed.2d 1 ; Graham v. Florida (2010) 560 U.S. 48, 68–75, 130 S.Ct. 2011, 176 L.Ed.2d 825 ( Graham ); Miller v. Alabama (2012) 567 U.S. 460, 469–470, 132 S.Ct. 2455, 183 L.Ed.2d 407 ; People v. Gutierrez (2014) 58 Cal.4th 1354, 1375–1376, 171 Cal.Rptr.3d 421, 324 P.3d 245 ; People v. Caballero (2012) 55 Cal.4th 262, 267, 145 Cal.Rptr.3d 286, 282 P.3d 291.) In the same period, the California Legislature enacted numerous reforms reflecting a rethinking of punishment for minors. (See, e.g., Stats. 2012, ch. 828, § 1; Stats. 2013, ch. 312, § 4; Stats. 2015, ch. 471, § 1; Stats. 2015, ch. 234, § 1.)

Consistent with these changes, in November 2016, the public implemented a series of criminal justice reforms through the passage of Proposition 57. For juvenile defendants, Proposition 57 "largely returned California to the historical rule." ( Lara , supra , 4 Cal. 5th at p. 305, 228 Cal.Rptr.3d 394, 410 P.3d 22.) " ‘Among other provisions, Proposition 57 amended the Welfare and Institutions Code so as to eliminate direct filing by prosecutors. Certain categories of minors ... can still be tried in criminal court, but only after a juvenile court judge conducts a transfer hearing to consider various factors such as the minor's maturity, degree of criminal sophistication, prior delinquent history, and whether the minor can be rehabilitated.’ " ( Ibid . ) For minors 16 or older, prosecutors can seek transfer to criminal court for any felony offense. ( Welf. & Inst. Code, § 707, subd. (a)(1).) For 14 and 15 year olds, prosecutors could seek transfer to criminal court only for specified serious or violent offenses. ( Id ., § 707, former subd. (a)(1), as amended by Prop. 57, § 4.2.) "All remnants of Proposition 21 were deleted by passage of Proposition 57." ( People v. Superior Court (K.L. ) (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 529, 534, fn. 3, 248 Cal.Rptr.3d 555 ( K.L. ).)

Senate Bill 1391 (Stats. 2018, ch. 1012, § 1) continued California's return to the historical rule. Effective January 1, 2019, Senate Bill 1391 amended Proposition 57 by eliminating the transfer of juveniles accused of committing crimes when they are 14 or 15 years old, unless they are first apprehended after the end of juvenile court jurisdiction. (See Welf. & Inst. Code, § 707, subd. (a)(1)–(2), as amended by Stats. 2018, ch. 1012, § 1.) In this way, Senate Bill 1391 marked a return to the rule in place beginning in 1961 and for close to 34 years thereafter — 16 again became the minimum age for transferring a minor to criminal court. (See Welf. & Inst. Code, former §§ 510, 603, 707, as amended by Stats. 1961, ch. 1616, pp. 3462, 3472, 3485.)

Two days after the passage of Senate Bill 1391, the Ventura County District Attorney's Office (the District Attorney's Office) filed a petition in juvenile court alleging that when minor O.G. was 15 years old, he committed two counts of murder ( Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a) ) and one count of second degree robbery (id ., § 211), with gang (id ., § 186.22, subd. (b)(1)) and firearm (id ., § 12022.53, subds. (b), (d), & (e)(1)) enhancements. The District Attorney's Office contemporaneously filed a motion to transfer O.G. to criminal court. The District Attorney's Office argued that Senate Bill 1391 is an unconstitutional amendment to Proposition 57 and the juvenile court therefore retained its authority to conduct a hearing to determine O.G.’s suitability for transfer to criminal court.

The juvenile court found that Senate Bill 1391 is unconstitutional because it prohibits what Proposition 57 "expressly permit[s]: adult court...