From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Garcia

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO
Jul 9, 2020
B301885 (Cal. Ct. App. Jul. 9, 2020)

Opinion

B301885

07-09-2020

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RUTH GARCIA, Defendant and Appellant.


NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. NA066126) THE COURT:

On December 5, 2005, appellant Ruth Garcia was advised of her constitutional rights to trial, to confront witnesses and against self-incrimination. She waived her rights, pleaded no contest to attempted murder, and admitted using a firearm and causing great bodily injury. (Pen. Code, §§ 664/187; 12022.5, subd. (a), 12022.7, subd. (a).) The court sentenced appellant to 20 years in prison, consisting of the midterm of seven years for attempted murder plus 13 years for the enhancements.

On July 8, 2019, appellant requested a transfer of her case to juvenile court pursuant to Proposition 57 and Welfare and Institutions Code section 707. She alleged that she was under the age of 18 when she committed the attempted murder. She requested counsel.

After examining the petition and its files, the court summarily denied appellant's petition. It ruled that appellant is not entitled to have her case sent to juvenile court because Proposition 57 does not apply retroactively to her.

Appellant timely appealed the denial of a transfer. We appointed counsel to represent appellant in her appeal. After examining the record, counsel filed an opening brief raising no issues. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441-443.) We advised appellant that she could personally submit any contentions or issues that she wished to raise on appeal. Appellant did not submit a supplemental brief.

Proposition 57 was enacted in 2016 (Cal. Const., art I, § 32) and "applies to all juveniles charged directly in adult court whose judgment was not final at the time it was enacted." (People v. Superior Court (Lara) (2018) 4 Cal.5th 299, 303-304.) A judgment is "final" when the judgment of conviction is rendered, appeals are exhausted and the time to petition for certiorari elapses. (People v. Kemp (1974) 10 Cal.3d 611, 614.) In this instance the judgment was final a decade before Proposition 57 was enacted. Therefore, appellant's case cannot be transferred to juvenile court.

We have reviewed the entire record and are satisfied that no arguable issue exists. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pp. 441-443; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 125-126.) The order denying a transfer is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED. /s/_________
LUI, P. J. /s/_________
ASHMANN-GERST, J. /s/_________
CHAVEZ, J.


Summaries of

People v. Garcia

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO
Jul 9, 2020
B301885 (Cal. Ct. App. Jul. 9, 2020)
Case details for

People v. Garcia

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RUTH GARCIA, Defendant and…

Court:COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO

Date published: Jul 9, 2020

Citations

B301885 (Cal. Ct. App. Jul. 9, 2020)