From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Brown

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR
Mar 30, 2020
A158755 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 30, 2020)

Opinion

A158755

03-30-2020

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. LATASHA BROWN, Defendant and Appellant.


NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Solano County Super. Ct. No. VCR164648)

Latasha Brown appeals an order denying her motion for a transfer hearing pursuant to Proposition 57, Welfare and Institutions Code section 707, subdivision (a). Her counsel has filed an opening brief raising no issues and asking this court for an independent review of the record. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Brown has been apprised of her right to personally file a supplemental brief, but she has not done so.

A jury convicted Brown of murdering Daphne Boyden and kidnapping Boyden's infant son, and found true allegations that she personally used a firearm in connection with each count. (Pen. Code, §§ 187, subd. (a), 208, subd. (b) & 12022.5, subd. (a)(1)). Brown was sentenced to a total term of 37 years to life. She appealed, and on June 2, 2006, a different panel of this division affirmed the judgment. (People v. Brown (Jun. 2, 2006, A108853) [nonpub. opn.].) The California Supreme Court denied review on August 16, 2006. (People v. Brown (Aug. 16, 2006, S144708.).)

We take judicial notice of the opinion in People v. Brown (Jun. 2, 2006, A108853). --------

The opinion in case A108853 explained that Brown was 15 years old when she committed the crimes in 1996, although she was not apprehended until 2002. In November 2016, more than ten years after the judgment became final on appeal, the voters passed Proposition 57, the Public Safety and Rehabilitation Act of 2016. Proposition 57 amended Welfare and Institutions Code section 707 to prohibit prosecutors from charging juveniles directly in adult court, instead requiring them to commence an action in juvenile court; if the prosecution wishes to try a juvenile as an adult, the juvenile court must conduct a "transfer hearing" to determine whether the case should be transferred to adult court. (People v. Superior Court (Lara) (2018) 4 Cal.5th 299, 303, 305-306.) In Lara, our high court held that, because Proposition 57 reduces the possible punishment for juveniles, it applies retroactively to all juveniles charged directly in adult court whose judgments were not final at the time Proposition 57 was enacted. (Id. at pp. 303-304, citing In re Estrada (1965) 63 Cal.2d 740.)

On June 20, 2019, Brown submitted to the trial court a motion for a Proposition 57 transfer hearing. The trial court denied the motion on the ground that Brown's judgment had become final in 2006, when the Supreme Court denied review.

There are no meritorious issues to be argued.

DISPOSITION

The October 11, 2019 order denying the motion for a transfer hearing is affirmed.

/s/_________

TUCHER, J. WE CONCUR: /s/_________
POLLAK, P. J. /s/_________
STREETER, J.


Summaries of

People v. Brown

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR
Mar 30, 2020
A158755 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 30, 2020)
Case details for

People v. Brown

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. LATASHA BROWN, Defendant and…

Court:COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR

Date published: Mar 30, 2020

Citations

A158755 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 30, 2020)