Opinion
C089209
09-24-2019
T.W., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PLACER COUNTY, Respondent; THE PEOPLE, Real Party in Interest.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. No. 52008187)
Petitioner T.W. is the defendant in a criminal action pending in the Placer County Superior Court. Petitioner filed this petition for writ of mandate challenging the respondent superior court's February 15, 2019 order declining to apply retroactively to petitioner Welfare and Institutions Code section 707 as amended by Senate Bill No. 1391 (Stats. 2018, ch. 12012, § 1) (Senate Bill 1391). Petitioner contends respondent court erred in concluding that the recent amendment to section 707 is unconstitutional, and the real party in interest the People agrees. Because we conclude the trial court erred in deeming Senate Bill 1391 unconstitutional, we will issue a writ of mandate compelling the trial court to apply section 707 as amended by Senate Bill 1391 to petitioner.
Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
EARLIER PROCEEDINGS
It is alleged that petitioner committed murder on July 19, 2016, when petitioner was fourteen years old. The case against petitioner was initially filed in juvenile court, but in April 2018, the juvenile court conducted a contested transfer hearing pursuant to section 707 and deemed petitioner unfit to be dealt with under juvenile court law. Accordingly, the juvenile court transferred petitioner, who was aged 14 at the time of the alleged conduct, to a court of criminal jurisdiction. Petitioner then entered a negotiated guilty plea to a lesser charge and agreed upon a stipulated sentence, and the matter was set for judgment and sentencing at a later date. Before judgment and sentencing occurred, Senate Bill 1391 was signed into law, and the parties agreed to continue judgment and sentencing to brief the applicability of that new law to petitioner. Both petitioner and the real party in interest, agreed that Senate Bill 1391 was an effective amendment to section 707 and that it applied to petitioner's case. Nevertheless, in its order of February 15, 2019, respondent court (the Honorable James P. Arguelles) concluded that Senate Bill 1391 is an unconstitutional amendment of section 707 and declined to apply that law to petitioner.
The Attorney General acted as the prosecutor in petitioner's criminal case on behalf of real party in interest the People.
Petitioner sought a writ of mandate from this court challenging the respondent court's February 15, 2019 order and seeking a remand of petitioner's case to juvenile court. On April 10, 2019, this court issued an order staying all further proceedings in petitioner's criminal case pending further order of this court. Thereafter, we sought opposition from the real party in interest, who filed an informal response concurring with petitioner that the trial court erred in finding Senate Bill 1391 invalid.
On June 28, 2019, relying on our published opinion in People v. Superior Court (K.L) (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 529, this court entered an order pursuant to Palma v. U.S. Industrial Fasteners, Inc. (1984) 36 Cal.3d 171, indicating that this court was considering issuing a peremptory writ of mandate in the first instance, i.e., without first issuing an alternative writ, because it appeared petitioner T.W. was correct in his assertion that the respondent court erred in concluding the amendment to section 707 effectuated by Senate Bill 1391 is unconstitutional. We invited the respondent court to reconsider its February 15, 2019 order declining to apply section 707 as amended by Senate Bill 1391 to petitioner, and further indicated that if the respondent court vacated that order, entered a new order dismissing the motion to transfer petitioner to criminal court, vacated its prior order transferring T.W. to criminal court, and sent the matter back to juvenile court, we would dismiss T.W.'s petition for writ of mandate as moot.
For nearly two months, the respondent court declined to take any relevant action in petitioner's case as suggested by this court's June 28, 2019 order. So, on August 27, 2019, this court issued an order directing that we would proceed with issuing a peremptory writ in the first instance and offering the real party in interest time to file opposition to the writ petition. The real party in interest filed a statement of non-opposition agreeing that a peremptory writ of mandate should issue.
DISCUSSION
Following the voters' passage of the "Public Safety and Rehabilitation Act of 2016" (Proposition 57), section 707 provided for transfer of all minors aged 16 or older and select minors aged 14 or 15 to criminal court " '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.' " (People v. Superior Court (2018) 4 Cal.5th 299, 305 (Lara); Prop. 57, § 4.2.) Thus, the juvenile court properly concluded petitioner could be transferred to criminal court under the law as it then existed. However, thereafter, the Legislature further amended section 707 by enacting Senate Bill 1391, which precludes transfer to criminal court (except in certain circumstances that do not apply here) of any minor aged 14 or 15 at the time of the alleged violation bringing the minor within the juvenile court's jurisdiction. (Stats. 2018, ch. 1012, § 1.) After Senate Bill 1391 became effective, petitioner sought remand of his case to juvenile court for a juvenile disposition rather than adult sentencing. The respondent court refused to transfer petitioner back to juvenile court jurisdiction, finding that Senate Bill 1391 is an unconstitutional amendment of section 707 that contravenes the intent and purpose of Proposition 57.
For reasons stated in this court's opinion in People v. Superior Court (K.L), supra, 36 Cal.App.5th 529, Senate Bill 1391 is not an unconstitutional amendment of Proposition 57. (See also People v. Superior Court (Alexander C.) (2019) 34 Cal.App.5th 994; People v. Superior Court (T.D.) (2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 360; People v. Superior Court (I.R.) (2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 383.) Therefore, because petitioner's case is still pending, he is entitled to the retroactive application of Senate Bill 1391, he should be adjudicated as a juvenile, and his transfer to adult court should be vacated. (See Lara, supra, 4 Cal.5th at pp. 308-314 [applying ameliorative provisions of Proposition 57 retroactively to cases not yet final at the time of the statutory amendment].)
DISPOSITION
Let a peremptory writ of mandate issue directing the respondent superior court to vacate its February 15, 2019 order deeming Senate Bill 1391 unconstitutional and declining to transfer petitioner to a court of juvenile jurisdiction, and directing that respondent superior court enter a new order applying section 707 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, as amended by Senate Bill 1391, to petitioner. To promote the interests of justice, this decision is final forthwith as to this court. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.490(b)(2)(A).) Pending finality of this decision, our previously issued stay order dated April 10, 2019, remains in effect. Upon finality, that order is vacated.
/s/_________
Robie, Acting P.J. We concur: /s/_________
Butz, J. /s/_________
Renner, J.