Category Archives: Juveniles

Amelioration, Fines and fees, Juveniles, Retroactivity

Case: 000243

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Because of legislation enacted since the disposition hearing, the $100 restitution fine is ordered stricken in this Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 juvenile proceeding.

Holding:

While this appeal was pending, the Legislature amended section 730.6 and removed the requirement that a minor pay a restitution fine. The relevant portion of the statute now states that the court shall not impose a separate and additional restitution fine against a minor found to be a person described in Welfare and Institutions Code section 602. Because the judgment is not final, the appellant is entitled to the ameliorative benefits of this amendment.

Authority:

WIC 730.6

In re Estrada (1965) 63 Cal.2d 740

Equal protection, Juveniles, Probation Parole PRCS, Sentencing

Case: 000187

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The defendant contends on this appeal that the trial court erroneously found he was not entitled to a Franklin hearing in his petition for writ of habeas corpus and erred in denying his Franklin motion as successive. In 2018, the defendant filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus requesting a Franklin hearing.

(The Franklin court had held that a defendant seeking to preserve evidence following a final judgment should be given an opportunity to make a record of information relevant to his youth offender parole hearing.. Franklin authorized trial courts to receive any documents, evaluations or testimony that may be relevant at an eventual youth offender parole hearing.)

That court (in 2018) denied that petition on the basis that he was not eligible for a youth offender parole hearing because he would already be released before reaching the 15 years’ threshold for youth offender parole. In 2024, the defendant filed a motion for a Franklin hearing under section 1203.01. The trial court denied that motion on the grounds that it was a successive motion. The People agree with defendant that the court erred when it denied his motion as successive. We conclude the trial court erred when it denied defendant’s motion for a Franklin hearing as successive. We reverse the court’s order and remand for the court to consider defendant’s motion under Penal Code section 1203.01.

First Holding:

Effective January 1, 2014, SB 260 (2013–2014 Reg. Sess.) enacted sections 3051, 3046(c), and 4801(c) to provide a parole eligibility mechanism for youthful offenders. Defendants who were 25 years old or younger at the time they committed the offense and were convicted of a determinate term are entitled to a youth offender parole hearing during their 15th year of incarceration. The Franklin court had held that a defendant seeking to preserve evidence following a final judgment should be given an opportunity to make a record of information relevant to his youth offender parole hearing.. Franklin authorized trial courts to receive any documents, evaluations or testimony that may be relevant at an eventual youth offender parole hearing. For defendants whose judgments were final, the proper procedure to obtain a Franklin hearing is to file a motion in superior court under the original caption and case number, citing the authority of section 1203.01 and the Cook decision.

Authority:

PEN 1203.01

People v. Franklin (2016) 63 Cal.4th 261,283-284

People v. Perez (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 612, 618

In re Cook (2019) 7 Cal.5th 439

Second Holding:

There is no express bar to successive motions or requests for a Franklin hearing under section 1203.01. The defendant’s section 1203.01 motion should not have been denied as successive.

Authority:

PEN 1203.1

People v. Franklin (2016) 63 Cal.4th 261

In re Cook (2019) 7 Cal.5th 439

Third Holding:

The trial court’s order denying a defendant’s Franklin motion is reviewed under the abuse of discretion standard. In deciding whether the court abused its discretion we ask whether the trial court’s findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence, whether its rulings of law are correct, and whether its application of the law to the facts was neither arbitrary nor capricious. Critical to the resolution of this case, we note that when a trial court’s decision rests on an error of law, that decision is an abuse of discretion.

Authority:

In re Cook (2019) 7 Cal.5th 439, 459

People v. Benzler (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 743, 749

People v. Superior Court (Humberto S.) (2008) 43 Cal.4th 737, 746

Fourth Holding:

Although defendant originally sought a Franklin hearing by filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus, as Cook explained, habeas corpus was not the proper procedure in the first instance. Accordingly, the court’s order denying the habeas petition did not bar the court from ruling on defendant’s subsequent Franklin motion, which was properly raised under section 1203.01 and Cook. As such, the trial court erred when it denied defendant’s Franklin motion on the sole basis he had already sought a Franklin hearing by filing a habeas petition. Therefore, the court abused its discretion when it denied defendant’s Franklin motion as successive.

Authority:

ADIn re Cook (2019) 7 Cal.5th 439, 457-458

Discretion, Juveniles

Case: 000140

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court erred in setting a maximum confinement time when he was released home on probation. We will strike the maximum confinement term and affirm the judgment as modified.

First Holding:

It is abuse of discretion for a juvenile court to set a maximum confinement term for a minor who is not removed from his parents’ custody

Authority:

In re A.C. (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 590, 591-592 [where a juvenile court’s order includes a maximum confinement term for a minor who is not removed from parental custody, the remedy is to strike the term]

Second Holding:

[GARY NOTE, for context, Welfare and Institutions Code section 726 states, in pertinent part, that IF a minor is removed from the custody of the parents, the court must state the maximum term, which the section also defines.]

Authority:

WIC 726

Fines and fees, Juveniles, Retroactivity

Case: 000137

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The minor contends, and the People concede, that recent amendments to Welfare and Institutions Code section 730.6 apply retroactively, requiring that the restitution fine imposed by the juvenile court be stricken.

First Holding:

While this appeal was pending, the Legislature amended section 730.6 and removed the requirement that a minor pay a restitution fine. The relevant portion of the statute now provides that the court shall not impose a separate and additional restitution fine against a minor found to be a person described in Section 602.

Authority:

WIC 730.6

Second Holding:

Appellant is entitled to the ameliorative benefits of this amendment.

Authority:

In re Estrada (1965) 63 Cal.2d 740, 745-746 [ameliorative legislation changes applicable to cases pending on appeal]

Discretion, Juveniles, Standard of review, Statutory interpretation

Case: 000133

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

In 2000, appellant was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole after being tried as an adult for two murders he committed when he was 17. In 2021, his sentence was recalled under Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (d). The prosecution filed a motion to again transfer appellant’s case from juvenile court to criminal court. The court granted the motion, and appellant challenges that ruling on appeal. We conclude that the court misapprehended one aspect of its discretion, reverse the order transferring appellant to criminal court, and remand for reconsideration of the issue.

First Holding:

In determining at a transfer hearing whether a juvenile should be tried as an adult, the court must consider five statutory factors, one of which is whether the minor can be rehabilitated prior to the expiration of the juvenile court’s jurisdiction. The court stated that juvenile jurisdiction would have ended when appellant turned 25 years old. The court was quite clear that its consideration of the relevant factor was always directed at determining whether appellant would have been rehabilitated by the age of 25.

However, the court was incorrect. The 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 subdivision (b) of Welfare and Institutions Code, Section 707. In this instance, the defendant would have been in his 40s two years after disposition hearing held in this case.

Authority:

WIC 707(d)

Second Holding:

When the appellant presents an issue of statutory interpretation, we review it de novo.

Authority:

In re Noah S. (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 410, 414

Third Holding:

Reversal is required unless the record clearly indicates that the trial court would have reached the same conclusion even if it had been aware that it had such discretion. Here, the court did not express how it would have ruled had it known juvenile jurisdiction could have lasted longer. One of the few comments the court made about the defendant’s post-age 25 conduct cuts against a finding of harmlessness. Paraphrased, the court stated that there was no question before it that the defendant has grown as an adult, but that the question was whether or not that growth would have occurred before age 25. It stated that the evidence it considered at the hearing indicates his growth occurred well past the age of 25.

Authority:

People v. Gutierrez (2014) 58 Cal.4th 1354, 139

Fourth Holding:

In order to transfer a minor from juvenile court to criminal court, the court must find by clear and convincing evidence that the minor is not amenable to rehabilitation while under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court.

Authority:

WIC 707(a)(3)

Abstracts and Minutes, Appellate Principles, Jury trial, Juveniles, Sentencing, Sixth Amendment

Case 000033

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court erred by not obtaining defendant’s personal waiver of the defendant’s right to a jury trial on allegations of aggravating circumstances and prior convictions under the Three Strikes law. As to the prior convictions, we find no prejudice. The error was prejudicial, however, with regard to the aggravating circumstances.

First Holding:

There is a constitutional right to a jury trial on all aggravating facts, other than a prior conviction, relied upon to justify an upper term sentence. A waiver of the right must be personally expressed by the defendant in open court. It must be explicit and will not be implied from the defendant’s conduct. A failure to object will not preclude his asserting on appeal his constitutional right to a jury trial.

Authority:

Section 16 of Article I of the California Constitution

People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1078

People v. Sivongxxay (2017) 3 Cal.5th 151, 166

People v. French (2008) 43 Cal.4th 36, 46-47

Second Holding:

A complete deprivation of a jury trial on issues of guilt is of a different magnitude than the denial of a jury determination on penalty allegations. Failure to submit a sentencing factor to the jury, like failure to submit an element to the jury, is not structural error.

Authority:

Washington v. Recuenco (2006) 548 U.S. 212

Third Holding:

When a defendant is deprived of a jury trial on aggravating facts used to justify imposition of an upper term sentence, the reviewing court must apply the Chapman standard of review. Under that standard, reversal and remand are required unless the reviewing court concludes beyond a reasonable doubt that a jury, applying that same standard, would have found true all of the aggravating facts upon which the court relied to conclude the upper term was justified. Lack of a jury trial is not harmless under Chapman if the record contains evidence that could rationally lead to a contrary finding’ with respect to the aggravating fact at issue.

Authority:

Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18

People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1087

People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730, 743

Neder v. United States (1999) 527 U.S. 1, 19

Fourth Holding:

The opening brief contains a footnote in which he cursorily asserts a related claim of insufficient evidence. We exercise our discretion to disregard points raised in a footnote rather than being properly presented under a discrete heading with appropriate analysis. Footnotes are not the appropriate vehicle for stating contentions on appeal

Authority:

Cal. Rules of Court rule 8.204(a)(1)(B)

People v. Carroll (2014) 222 Cal.App.4th 1406, 1412, fn. 5

Sabi v. Sterling (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 916, 947

People v. Crosswhite (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 494, 502, fn. 5

Fifth Holding:

With respect to the prior convictions, defendant’s claims are insufficiently developed and could be rejected for that reason alone.

Authority:

People v. Freeman (1994) 8 Cal.4th 450, 482, fn. 2

People v. Hardy (1992) 2 Cal.4th 86, 150

Sixth Holding:

Outside the pronouncement of judgment, discrepancies between a minute order and the reporter’s transcript are resolved by adopting whichever should be given greater credence under the circumstances of the particular case.

Authority:

People v. Contreras (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 868, 880

People v. Smith (1983) 33 Cal.3d 596, 599

Seventh Holding:

There is no federal or state constitutional right to a jury trial on the fact of a prior conviction. In California, defendants have a statutory right to a jury trial on the question of whether or not the defendant has suffered the prior conviction. The requirement of an express waiver under section 16 of article I of the California Constitution] applies to the constitutional right to a jury trial, but not to jury trial rights that are established only by statute. Therefore, the statutory right to a jury trial on prior conviction allegations can be impliedly waived and forfeited.

Authority:

PEN 1025(b) and (c)

Almendarez-Torres v. United States (1998) 523 U.S. 224

People v. Gallardo (2017) 4 Cal.5th 120, 125

People v. French (2008) 43 Cal.4th 36, 46

People v. Grimes (2016) 1 Cal.5th 698, 737–738

People v. Saunders (1993) 5 Cal.4th 580, 589

Eighth Holding:

As a general rule, double jeopardy principles do not prohibit retrial following reversal on appeal for reasons other than insufficiency of the evidence.

Authority:

People v. Wilson (2023) 14 Cal.5th 839, 855

Monge v. California (1998) 524 U.S. 721, 728–729

Ninth Holding:

Juvenile adjudications do not, under any circumstances, qualify as convictions for purposes of section 667(a) (the enhancement for prior convictions of a serious felony when the new offense is a serious felony).

Authority:

People v. West (1984) 154 Cal.App.3d 100, 107–108

People v. Park (2013) 56 Cal.4th 782, 798

People v. Smith (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1072, 1080, fn. 10

People v. O’Neal (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 1065, 1068