Error and/or relief
In decided the transfer the juvenile’s case to adult court, the court erred in evaluating whether the minor can be rehabilitated prior to expiration of the juvenile court’s jurisdiction and based its decision at least in part on unreliable data presented by a prosecution witness. We remand for the juvenile court to reconsider the second criterion under section 707(a)(3)(B), consistent with this opinion, whetherthe minor can be rehabilitated prior to the expiration of the court’s jurisdiction.
In addition, the court is to make a finding whether, in light of all five statutory criteria, the People have met their burden of demonstrating by clear and convincing evidence that the minor. is not amenable to rehabilitation.
First Holding:
Under Welfare and Institutions Code section 707(a)(1), when a minor 16 years or older is alleged to have committed a felony, the prosecution may make a motion to transfer the minor from juvenile court to a court of criminal jurisdiction. The prosecution bears the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the minor is not amenable to rehabilitation while under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court.
The clear and convincing evidence standard demands a degree of certainty greater than that involved with the preponderance standard, but less than what is required by the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt Where clear and convincing proof is required, the proponent must convince the jury or judge that it is highly probable that the facts which he asserts are true.
Authority:
WIC 707(a)(1)
Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.770(a)
In re J.S. (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 205, 211 and fn. 2
In re Miguel R. (2024) 100 Cal.App.5th 152, 164
Conservatorship of O.B. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 989, 998
Second Holding:
There are five criteria set forth in Welfare and Institutions Code section 707 that a court is required to consider in deciding whether a minor should be transferred to a court of criminal jurisdiction, including ((1) the degree of criminal sophistication exhibited by the minor; (2) whether the minor can be rehabilitated prior to the expiration of the juvenile court’s jurisdiction; (3) the minor’s previous delinquent history; (4) success of previous attempts by the juvenile court to rehabilitate the minor; and (5) the circumstances and gravity of the offense alleged in the petition to have been committed by the minor.
For each of these five criteria, section 707 provides a nonexhaustive mandatory list of factors to which a juvenile court shall give weight in evaluating the criterion.
Authority:
WIC 707(a)(3)(A)-(E)
Third Holding:
Under the second factor, the court must focus on whether there is enough time to rehabilitate the minor while the minor is still eligible to remain under juvenile court jurisdiction.
Authority:
In re Miguel R. (2024) 100 Cal.App.5th 152, 166
Fourth Holding:
Add holding blurb here
Authority:
ADD AUTHORITIES HERE
Fifth Holding:
We review the juvenile court’s ruling on a transfer motion for abuse of discretion. The abuse of discretion standard is not a unified standard; the deference it calls for varies according to the aspect of a trial court’s ruling under review.
The juvenile court’s findings with respect to each of section 707’s five criteria are findings of fact reviewed for substantial evidence. In conducting substantial evidence review, we draw all reasonable inferences in support of the court’s findings.
The juvenile court’s ultimate finding that a minor is not amenable to rehabilitation while under its jurisdiction is likewise reviewed for substantial evidence.
Authority:
In re Miguel R. (2024) 100 Cal.App.5th 152, 165
In re O.F. (2026) 119 Cal.App.5th 133, 160
People v. Cardenas (2020) 53 Cal.App.5th 102, 119
Sixth Holding:
Because the juvenile court must make these findings by clear and convincing evidence, we review its findings by determining whether the record, viewed as a whole, contains substantial evidence from which a reasonable trier of fact could have made the finding of high probability demanded by the clear and convincing evidence standard. The juvenile] court’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo, and its application of the law to the facts is reversible only if arbitrary and capricious.
Authority:
Conservatorship of O.B. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 989, 1005
In re O.F. (2026) 119 Cal.App.5th 133, 161-162
In re Miguel R. (2024) 100 Cal.App.5th 152, 165
In re J.S. (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 205, 211