People v. Superior Court of Riverside Cnty.
Decision Date | 22 December 2016 |
Docket Number | D071461 |
Citation | 220 Cal.Rptr.3d 1,12 Cal.App.5th 687 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | The PEOPLE, Petitioner, v. The SUPERIOR COURT of Riverside County, Respondent; Jeremy Walker, Real Party In Interest. |
Michael A. Hestrin, District Attorney, and Donald W. Ostertag, Deputy District Attorney for Petitioner.
Bonnie M. Dumanis, District Attorney, Peter J. Cross, Deputy District Attorney, as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
Robert J. Booher, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Real Party in Interest.
California Public Defenders Association, Law Offices of the Public Defender and Laura B. Arnold, as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Real Party in Interest.
On November 8, 2016, the voters passed Proposition 57,1 and the new law became effective the following day. As relevant to this writ proceeding, Proposition 57 eliminated the People's ability to directly file criminal charges against a juvenile defendant2 in a court of criminal jurisdiction (Adult Court). We must determine whether Proposition 57 applies to a pending case that the People directly filed in Adult Court against real party in interest, Jeremy Walker, several years prior to the effective date of the new law. We conclude that Proposition 57 does not apply to Walker's case and that the trial court's transfer of Walker's case from Adult Court to the juvenile court (Juvenile Court) pursuant to the new law was erroneous.3 Accordingly, we grant the People's writ petition and direct the trial court to vacate its order transferring Walker's case from Adult Court to Juvenile Court.
In February 2012, the People filed a complaint against Walker in Adult Court, alleging two counts of attempted premeditated murder ( Pen. Code, §§ 664, 187, subd. (a) ) and one count of active participation in a gang ( Pen. Code, § 186.22, subd. (a) ). With respect to the attempted murder counts, the People alleged two firearm enhancements ( Pen. Code, § 12022.53, subds. (d), (e) ) and a gang enhancement ( Pen. Code, § 186.22, subd. (b) ). The record indicates that Walker was 17 years old at the time of the events giving rise to the charges.
The People filed the complaint pursuant to former section 707, subdivision (d) of the Welfare and Institutions Code.4 That statute permitted the direct filing of criminal charges in Adult Court against a person who was under 18 years of age at the time the crime was allegedly committed, under certain specified circumstances.
A jury found Walker guilty as charged. The jury also found the firearm and gang enhancements true. The trial court sentenced Walker to 80 years to life in prison.
In May 2015, this court ruled that the trial court erred in admitting certain evidence at Walker's trial and reversed his convictions. In September 2015, the remittitur issued in Walker's appeal. Since the issuance of the remittitur, Walker has been awaiting retrial.
On November 8, 2016, the voters passed Proposition 57, which became effective the following day.
In late November 2016, Walker filed a motion to transfer his case from Adult Court to Juvenile Court, in light of Proposition 57. In his motion, Walker argued that Proposition 57 "applies retroactively to direct file cases which are not yet final." (Formatting omitted.)
The People filed an opposition to the motion in which they argued that Proposition 57 did not apply retroactively to cases filed in Adult Court prior to the effective date of the new law.
The trial court held a hearing on Walker's motion on December 12, 2016. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court granted the motion, ruling in relevant part:
The trial court stayed its order to permit the People to seek appellate review.
That same day, the People filed a petition for writ of mandate/prohibition in the Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division 2. In their petition, the People requested that the Court of Appeal order the trial court to vacate its order granting Walker's motion. Three days later, the Administrative Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, transferred the matter to this court.5
On December 22, this court issued an order to show cause, directed Walker to file a return, permitted the People to file a traverse, and stayed all further proceedings in the trial court. Thereafter, Walker filed a return, the People filed a traverse, and this court heard argument in the matter.6
The trial court's order granting Walker's motion to transfer the case from Adult Court to Juvenile Court is premised on an improper retroactive application of Proposition 57
In their petition, the People argue that this court should order the trial court to vacate its order granting Walker's motion. In support of this contention, the People argue that Proposition 57 does not apply retroactively to cases properly filed in Adult Court prior to the effective date of the proposition, and that the trial court's order transferring Walker's case to Juvenile Court is premised on an improper retroactive application of the law.
Walker contends that Proposition 57 applies retroactively to cases filed in Adult Court prior to the effective date of the proposition. In the alternative, Walker contends that the trial court's order constitutes a prospective application of the new law. Walker also argues that the Adult Court lacks jurisdiction over his case pursuant to a section of the Welfare and Institutions Code (§ 602 ) Proposition 57. Finally, Walker maintains that to fail to apply Proposition 57 to his case would constitute a denial of equal protection of the law.
We first provide a summary of Proposition 57, before considering whether the proposition may be applied retroactively to cases properly filed in Adult Court before the effective date of the statute. After concluding that Proposition 57 may not be applied retroactively, we next consider whether the trial court's order is premised on a prospective application of the new law. We conclude that the trial court's application of Proposition 57 to Walker's case constitutes an improper retroactive application of the law. We further conclude that the Adult Court does not lack jurisdiction over Walker's case under section 602 and that failing to apply Proposition 57 to Walker's case would not deny him equal protection of the law.
In People v. Cervantes (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 569, 215 Cal.Rptr.3d 174 ( Cervantes ), review granted May 17, 2017, S241323, the Court of Appeal summarized the state of the law governing the filing of criminal charges against juveniles prior to the enactment of Proposition 57.
( Cervantes , at pp. 595–596, 215 Cal.Rptr.3d 174, fn.omitted.)
As noted previously, the electorate adopted Proposition 57 on November 8, 2016, and it became effective the following day. The proposition eliminated the People's ability to directly file charges against a juvenile defendant in Adult Court.8 (See Cervantes , supra , 9 Cal.App.5th at p. 596, 215 Cal.Rptr.3d 174 ; People v. Superior Court (Lara ) (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 753, 758, 215 Cal.Rptr.3d 456 ( Lara ), review granted May 17, 2017, S241231.) The Cervantes court summarized Proposition 57 as follows:
( Cervantes , at pp. 596–597, 215 Cal.Rptr.3d 174, fn.omitted.)
As suggested by the Cervantes court's summary, Proposition 57 amended sections 602 and 707. As amended by Proposition 57, section 602 provides:
...To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Suarez
...unfitness of a minor for purposes of juvenile court jurisdiction over his or her matter. (See, e.g., People v. Superior Court (Walker ) (2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 687, 696, 220 Cal.Rptr.3d 1, review granted Sept. 13, 2017, S243072.) All cases against minors are now required to be filed in juveni......
-
People v. Brewer
...unfitness of a minor for purposes of juvenile court jurisdiction over his or her matter. (See, e.g., People v. Superior Court (Walker ) (2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 687, 696, 220 Cal.Rptr.3d 1, review granted Sept. 13, 2017, S243072.) All cases against minors are now required to be filed in juveni......
-
People v. Superior Court of Riverside Cnty.
...and the defendant is not entitled to a transfer hearing], review granted January 24, 2018, S245513; People v. Superior Court (Walker) (2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 687, 220 Cal.Rptr.3d 1 [holding that Estrada does not apply, and the defendant is not entitled to a transfer hearing], review granted S......
-
People v. Navarra
...P.2d 434 (Tapia ).)52 This question is pending review before the state Supreme Court in numerous cases, including People v. Superior Court (Walker) (2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 687, review granted September 13, 2017, S243072; Marquez, supra, 11 Cal.App.5th 816, rev.gr.; People v. Vela (2017) 11 Ca......