People v. Navarra
| Decision Date | 16 October 2017 |
| Docket Number | F071142 |
| Citation | 223 Cal.Rptr.3d 820,16 Cal.App.5th 173 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Brittany NAVARRA, Defendant and Appellant. |
Certified for Partial Publication.*
Audrey R. Chavez, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Kamala D. Harris and Xavier Becerra, Attorneys General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Louis M. Vasquez, Lewis A. Martinez, Tia Coronado and William K. Kim, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Brittany Navarra (defendant) stands convicted, following a jury trial, of first degree murder ( Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a) ; count 1), first degree burglary (id ., § 459; count 2), and conspiracy to commit murder (id ., § 182, subd. (a)(1); count 3). The jury further found true a lying-in-wait special circumstance (id ., § 190.2, subd. (a)(15)) with respect to count 1. Defendant was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole (LWOP) and ordered to pay various fees, fines, and assessments.1
In our original unpublished opinion, we found no prejudicial error and affirmed, rejecting defendant's claims (1) she was denied various constitutional rights by the admission of Gran's convictions; (2) she was denied various constitutional rights by the admission of Gran's statement to a psychologist who interviewed Gran in conjunction with Gran's plea of not guilty by reason of insanity (NGI); (3) the jury instructions allowed jurors to find defendant guilty of first degree murder based on Gran's mental state rather than her own; (4) there was insufficient evidence to support first degree murder by lying in wait and the lying-in-wait special circumstance; (5) imposition of an LWOP sentence violated the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Defendant petitioned for rehearing, arguing, among other things, that Proposition 57, the Public Safety and Rehabilitation Act of 2016 (Proposition 57 or the Act), requires that she be afforded a conditional reversal of the judgment and remand for a fitness/transfer hearing in juvenile court.2 Although it would have been preferable for appellate counsel to seek permission to file a supplemental brief before defendant's appeal was ordered on calendar, rather than waiting until our opinion was filed, we granted rehearing to determine whether defendant is entitled to relief under Proposition 57. In the published portion of this opinion, we conclude Proposition 57 does not apply retroactively to defendant's case. In so holding, we reject defendant's claim retroactivity to juvenile offenders with LWOP sentences is required under Montgomery v. Louisiana (2016) 577 U.S. ––––, ––––, 136 S.Ct. 718, 734, 193 L.Ed.2d 599 ( Montgomery ). In the unpublished portion, we adhere to our original analysis and again find no prejudicial error. Accordingly, we again affirm.
In granting rehearing, we asked the parties to submit supplemental briefing regarding whether Proposition 57 applies retroactively to defendant's case.
Defendant argues she is entitled to relief under the Act because (1) the provisions of Proposition 57 requiring a juvenile transfer hearing are retroactive to cases not yet final, pursuant to the holding of In re Estrada (1965) 63 Cal.2d 740, 48 Cal.Rptr. 172, 408 P.2d 948 ( Estrada ), and (2) retroactivity to juvenile offenders with LWOP sentences is required under Montgomery , supra , 577 U.S. ––––, 136 S.Ct. 718.
Historically, before a minor could be tried in criminal (adult) court, California required a finding the minor was unfit to be dealt with under the juvenile court law. (See, e.g., Juan G. v. Superior Court (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 1480, 1493, 147 Cal.Rptr.3d 816 ( Juan G. ); People v. Cardona (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 516, 524, 99 Cal.Rptr.3d 313.) Although, prior to 1999, there were no provisions for the direct filing (mandatory or discretionary) of charges against juveniles in criminal court ( Juan G. , at p. 1493, 147 Cal.Rptr.3d 816 ), a presumption of unfitness for minors, aged 16 years old or older and charged with specified offenses, was added to the Welfare and Institutions Code48 in 1979, and extended, in 1994, to minors between the ages of 14 and 16 who were alleged to have committed certain forms of murder ( People v. Superior Court (Jones) (1998) 18 Cal.4th 667, 680–681, fn. 1, 76 Cal.Rptr.2d 641, 958 P.2d 393 ).
In 1999, the Legislature added subdivision (b) to section 602, mandating the direct filing of criminal cases against minors 16 years of age or older under specified circumstances. ( Juan G. , supra , 209 Cal.App.4th at p. 1493, 147 Cal.Rptr.3d 816.) In 2000, voters approved Proposition 21, the Gang Violence and Juvenile Crime Prevention Act of 1998. In pertinent part, it "confer[red] on prosecutors the discretion to bring specified charges against certain minors directly in criminal court, without a prior adjudication by the juvenile court that the minor is unfit for a disposition under the juvenile court law." ( Manduley v. Superior Court (2002) 27 Cal.4th 537, 545, 117 Cal.Rptr.2d 168, 41 P.3d 3 ( Manduley ); see generally id . at pp. 548–550, 117 Cal.Rptr.2d 168, 41 P.3d 3.) Proposition 21 also decreased, to 14, the minimum age for mandatory criminal prosecutions. ( Manduley , at p. 550, 117 Cal.Rptr.2d 168, 41 P.3d 3.)
Krista Pike was killed on January 14, 2008. Defendant was born June 26, 1991, making her 16 years old at the time of the crimes of which she was convicted. Because the information alleged that Pike's murder was committed by Dustin Gran, with defendant aiding and abetting him, defendant was not subject to the mandatory direct filing provision of former section 602, subdivision (b). She was, however, subject to the discretionary direct filing provisions of former section 707.
Defendant was convicted on September 24, 2014, and sentenced on February 20, 2015. Her notice of appeal was filed on February 20, 2015. On November 8, 2016, while defendant's appeal was pending, voters enacted Proposition 57. It went into effect the next day. ( Cal. Const., art. II, § 10, subd. (a).) Insofar as we are concerned, the Act eliminated the People's ability to initiate criminal cases against juvenile offenders anywhere but in juvenile court. The Act also removed the presumption of unfitness that previously attached to the alleged commission of certain offenses.49
The purpose of the portions of Proposition 57 that deal with juvenile offenders is to undo Proposition 21. (See generally People v. Marquez (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 816, 821, review granted July 26, 2017, S242660 ( Marquez ).) Thus, two of the Act's stated purposes, contained in uncodified section 2 thereof, are to "[s]top the revolving door of crime by emphasizing rehabilitation, especially for juveniles," and "[r]equire a judge, not a prosecutor, to decide whether juveniles should be tried in adult court." (Voter Information Guide, Gen. Elec. (Nov. 8, 2016) text of Prop. 57, § 2, p. 141.)50
There can be no doubt that, had defendant committed her offenses after Proposition 57 went into effect, she would have been entitled to a fitness hearing—with no presumption of unfitness—before her case could be transferred to criminal (adult) court for prosecution.51 The question we confront is whether Proposition 57 applies to juvenile offenders who, like defendant, were charged, tried, convicted, and sentenced before the Act's effective date, but whose cases are not yet final on appeal. (See People v. Covarrubias (2016) 1 Cal.5th 838, 929, 207 Cal.Rptr.3d 228, 378 P.3d 615 [].) This is a purely legal question we analyze de novo. (See People v. Arroyo (2016) 62 Cal.4th 589, 593, 197 Cal.Rptr.3d 122, 364 P.3d 168 ( Arroyo ).)52
Defendant says the provisions of Proposition 57 requiring a juvenile fitness/transfer hearing, and repealing the presumption of unfitness, apply to all cases not yet final. We disagree.
In ascertaining whether a statute should be applied retroactively, the intent of the electorate, or the Legislature, "is the ‘paramount’ consideration." ( People v. Nasalga (1996) 12 Cal.4th 784, 792, 50 Cal.Rptr.2d 88, 910 P.2d 1380 (plur. opn. of Werdegar, J.); see People v. Conley (2016) 63 Cal.4th 646, 656, 203 Cal.Rptr.3d 622, 373 P.3d 435.) ‘ ' ( Arroyo , supra , 62 Cal.4th at p. 593, 197 Cal.Rptr.3d 122, 364 P.3d 168.)
( Tapia , supra , 53 Cal.3d at p. 287, 279 Cal.Rptr. 592, 807 P.2d 434.) While the Welfare and Institutions Code does not contain a statutory codification of this principle (cf., e.g., Code Civ. Proc., § 3, Pen. Code, § 3 ), the California Supreme Court has made clear such ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Superior Court of Riverside Cnty.
...[holding, over a dissent, that Estrada does not apply, and the defendant is not entitled to a transfer hearing]; People v. Navarra (2017) 16 Cal.App.5th 173, 223 Cal.Rptr.3d 820 [holding that Estrada does not apply, and the defendant is not entitled to a transfer hearing], review granted Ja......