Error and/or relief
The juvenile court abused its discretion because its decision to transfer the minor to adult criminal court was not supported by substantial evidence. We vacate the transfer order and remand.
First Holding:
In California, a juvenile court is a superior court that exercises limited jurisdiction arising under juvenile law. The initial jurisdiction of a juvenile court is based on the age of the person when he violates a criminal law or ordinance, it is not based on the age when he is actually apprehended.
After a juvenile court has initial jurisdiction over a minor, the juvenile court generally retains jurisdiction until he turns 21 years old. However, if a person is alleged to have committed one of 30 serious offenses under section 707(b), then the juvenile court may continue to exercise jurisdiction over that person for a limited period after he turns 21.
Relevant to this case, a juvenile court may retain jurisdiction over a person who is 25 years of age or older for a period not to exceed two years from the date of disposition if the person is found to be a person described in section 602 by reason of the commission of an offense listed in section 707(b). The court shall exercise jurisdiction in conformance with the objectives of the juvenile court.
Authority:
WIC 607(a), (d)
WIC 707(b)
In re Chantal S. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 196, 200
M.E. v. Superior Court (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 1199, 1205 [explaining initial jurisdiction and noting that it is theoretically possible for a person to commit a crime at the age of 17, be arrested 50 years later, and be subject to the initial jurisdiction of the juvenile court at age 67]
In re Keith C. (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 151, 155
Second Holding:
If a minor was 16 years or older when he committed a felony or one of 30 serious offenses under section 707(b), the district attorney may file a motion to transfer the minor from juvenile court to a court of criminal jurisdiction. In order to transfer a minor to a criminal court, the prosecutor must show by clear and convincing evidence that the minor is not amenable to rehabilitation while under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court.
To resolve a transfer motion, section 707 requires the juvenile court to consider five factors: (1) the degree of criminal sophistication exhibited; (2) whether the minor can be rehabilitated prior to the expiration of the juvenile court’s jurisdiction; (3) prior delinquent history; (4) the success of prior attempts by a juvenile court at rehabilitation; and (5) the circumstances and gravity of the offense alleged.
While the juvenile court must consider these five factors, the weight each factor receives is within the juvenile court’s discretion.
Thus, the juvenile court has the discretion to conclude that one or more of the five factors predominate so as to determine the result, even though some or all of the other factors might point to a different result. If a juvenile court grants a transfer motion, section 707(a)(3) requires the juvenile court to recite the basis for its decision in an order entered upon the minutes, which shall include the reasons supporting the court’s finding that the minor is not amenable to rehabilitation while under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court. Section 707 also provides additional nonexhaustive considerations for assessing each of the five factors.
As relevant to this case, with respect to the second factor, section 707 directs the juvenile court to give weight to any relevant factor, including, but not limited to, the minor’s potential to grow and mature. The second factor is not the same as the ultimate determination of whether the minor is amenable to rehabilitation while under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court. Rather, the focus of the second factor is whether there is enough time to rehabilitate the minor while he is still eligible to remain under the juvenile court’s jurisdiction.
Therefore, the prosecution should produce evidence that the juvenile court will have insufficient time to rehabilitate the minor.
Authority:
WIC 707
In re O.F. (2026) 119 Cal.App.5th 133, 158-160
In re Miguel R. (2024) 100 Cal.App.5th 152, 164, 166-167
Kevin P. v. Superior Court (2020) 57 Cal.App.5th 173, 186
In re E.P. (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 409, 417
Third Holding:
A juvenile court’s decision to transfer a minor to the jurisdiction of a criminal court is reviewed under the abuse of discretion standard. A court abuses its discretion by issuing an order that exceeds the bounds of reason. A court may also abuse its discretion if its understanding of the applicable law is incorrect, it is unaware of the full scope of its discretion, or it relies on impermissible criteria.
The juvenile court’s findings on the five section 707(a)(3) factors, as well as its ultimate finding that the minor is not amenable to rehabilitation while under its jurisdiction, are reviewed for substantial evidence. Because the clear and convincing evidence standard applies to a motion to transfer, we determine 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 that standard.
Authority:
In re O.F. (2026) 119 Cal.App.5th 133, 160
People v. K.D. (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 1, 18
People v. Knoller (2007) 41 Cal.4th 139, 156
Kevin P. v. Superior Court (2020) 57 Cal.App.5th 173, 187
In re Miguel R. (2024) 100 Cal.App.5th 152, 165
Fourth Holding:
It is clear from the record that the court was not aware that it had jurisdiction for at least two years from the date the disposition was ordered, regardless of the person’s age (which, in this case was the mid 30s). Because the juvenile court found that it had lost jurisdiction based on the minor’s age alone, its finding is contrary to section 607(d) and thus, rests on an incorrect understanding of the law. Therefore, the court abused its discretion in its assessment of the second factor of section 707(a)(3).
Authority:
Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 540 [An order that implicitly or explicitly rests on an erroneous reading of the law necessarily is an abuse of discretion.]
People v. Knoller (2007) 41 Cal.4th 139, 156
People v. K.D. (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 1, 18-19
Kevin P. v. Superior Court (2020) 57 Cal.App.5th 173, 187
Fifth Holding:
All defendants are entitled to decisions made in the exercise of the trial court’s informed discretion. A court does not exercise informed discretion when its decision is based on a misunderstanding of applicable law.
Because there has been a misunderstanding of applicable law by the juvenile court, we must determine whether the record clearly indicates that the juvenile court still would have ordered the minor transferred to the criminal court if it had correctly understood the applicability of section 607(d).
Given the apparent importance of the second factor, and that the record does not clearly indicate how the juvenile court would have assessed the second factor under the applicable law, we must remand this matter for the court to make further findings.
Authority:
People v. Murphy (2025) 116 Cal.App.5th 249, 256