Error and/or relief
We conclude that the juvenile court erred when it found all five statutory criteria weigh in favor of transferring the minor to criminal court under Welfare and Institutions Code section 707(a)(3)(A)–(E)), and when it found him not amenable to rehabilitation.
(Gary note: After setting out the holdings I have listed below, the opinion goes into great detail analyzing the evidence in the case under the criteria required to be considered by the juvenile court in deciding whether to retain the minor in juvenile court or to transfer the minor to adult court. The analysis is quite extensive and completely fact-heavy. Since an unpublished opinion cannot be cited as authority, the court’s analysis could not be used in any briefing to compare and contrast with any other defendant’s scenario. So I have not included that portion of the opinion.)
First Holding:
With respect to whether the minor can be rehabilitated within the two-year period the juvenile court may exercise jurisdiction over him given his age and the success of previous attempts by the juvenile court to rehabilitate the minor, the prosecution failed to meet its burden of proving these criteria favor transfer to criminal court and, therefore, there is insufficient evidence to support the juvenile court’s findings in the prosecution’s favor on these issues.
Although the weight to be given each of the five criteria is within the juvenile court’s discretion, and the court has the discretion to conclude that one or more of the five criteria predominate so as to determine the result, even though some or all of the other criteria might point to a different result, the juvenile court’s ultimate finding that the minor is not amenable to rehabilitation is unsupported by substantial evidence.
Authority:
In re O.F. (2026) 119 Cal.App.5th 133, 159
In re E.P. (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 409, 417
Second Holding:
Where, as here, the juvenile court has abused its discretion in evaluating the evidence and applying the operative legal standards, it is appropriate to remand the matter so the court may reconsider the evidence and its ultimate determination through the lens of amenability to rehabilitation.
Authority:
In re O.F. (2026) 119 Cal.App.5th 133, 162
In re S.S. (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 1277, 1288
J.N. v. Superior Court (2018) 23 Cal.App.5th 706, 714–715 [exercises of discretion must be guided by applicable legal principles]
Third Holding:
When a minor age 16 or older is alleged to have committed a felony, the prosecution may move to transfer the minor to criminal court. Upon the motion, the juvenile court must order the probation officer to submit a report on the minor’s behavioral patterns and social history. The parties may submit other relevant evidence’ in connection with the transfer motion. In determining whether to transfer a minor to criminal court, the juvenile court shall consider the criteria specified in subparagraphs (A) to (E) of section 707, subdivision (a)(3).
These criteria are: (1) the degree of criminal sophistication 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) the 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.
Section 707 also sets forth a nonexhaustive list of factors relevant to each of the five criteria. And consideration of these factors is now mandatory rather than discretionary.
Authority:
WIC 707
In re O.F. (2026) 119 Cal.App.5th 133, 158-159, 160
In re Miguel R. (2024) 100 Cal.App.5th 152, 164-165
Fourth Holding:
As amended by AB 2361, section 707 now provides that in order to find that the minor should be transferred to a court of criminal jurisdiction, the court shall find by clear and convincing evidence that the minor is not amenable to rehabilitation while under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court.
This changed the finding a juvenile court must make before ordering a transfer in two ways: (1) raising the standard of proof; and (2) requiring a new specific finding regarding amenability to rehabilitation.
It also amended section 707 to require the court to recite the basis for its decision in an order that includes the reasons supporting the court’s finding that the minor is not amenable to rehabilitation while under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court.
Authority:
In re S.S. (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 1277, 1284
Fifth Holding:
The weight to be given to each of these criteria is within the court’s discretion. However, to transfer a minor to criminal court, the juvenile court must ultimately find, by clear and convincing evidence, that the minor is not amenable to rehabilitation while under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court.
The prosecution bears the burden of proof. Nothing in section 707 indicates that the court is required to give equal weight to each of the five criteria or that it would necessarily be an abuse of discretion to find that one criterion outweighed the other criteria.
This standard requires a finding of high probability The evidence must be so clear as to leave no substantial doubt; sufficiently strong to command the unhesitating assent of every reasonable mind.
Authority:
Kevin P. v. Superior Court (2020) 57 Cal.App.5th 173, 186
D.W. v. Superior Court (2019) 43 Cal.App.5th 109, 116
In re O.F. (2026) 119 Cal.App.5th 133, 159, 161
C.S. v. Superior Court (2018) 29 Cal.App.5th 1009, 1035
In re Miguel R. (2024) 100 Cal.App.5th 152, 167
In re E.P. (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 409, 417
Conservatorship of O.B. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 989, 998, fn. 2
In re S.S. (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 1277, 1286
Sixth Holding:
We review the juvenile court’s ruling on a transfer motion for abuse of discretion. The court’s factual findings are reviewed for substantial evidence, and its legal conclusions are reviewed de novo.
A decision based on insufficient evidence or the court’s erroneous understanding of applicable law is subject to reversal. But we do not reweigh the evidence and we do not substitute our discretion for the discretion exercised by the trial court.
We draw all reasonable inferences in support of the court’s findings, not against them. We are concerned only with whether the circumstances reasonably justify the trier of fact’s findings. When evidence reasonably justifies the trier of fact’s findings, the opinion of the reviewing court that the circumstances might also reasonably be reconciled with a contrary finding does not warrant a reversal of the judgment.
Authority:
In re Miguel R. (2024) 100 Cal.App.5th 152, 165, 169
Kevin P. v. Superior Court (2020) 57 Cal.App.5th 173, 187
In re J.S. (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 205, 211