Filed 10/23/23 P. v. J.C. CA2/6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

THE PEOPLE,

 Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

J.C.,

 Defendant and Appellant.

2d Crim. No. B325815

(Super. Ct. No. 2013009594)

(Ventura County)

Relying on Welfare and Institutions Code1 section 801, 

subdivision (a), J.C. appeals a superior court order denying his 

motion for reconsideration regarding his request to transfer his 

case from criminal court to juvenile court. We conclude, among 

other things, that the December 22, 2022, order J.C. has appealed

from does not fall within section 801, which authorizes appellate 

jurisdiction. 

1 All statutory references are to the Welfare and 

Institutions Code unless otherwise stated.
2

Nevertheless, as we shall explain, J.C. will receive a 

hearing in the juvenile court to determine whether he should be 

tried as an adult or a juvenile.

FACTS

A grand jury indictment alleged that on January 17, 2009, 

J.C. committed murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a)) for the 

benefit of a criminal street gang (id., § 186.22) (count 1); he 

attempted to discharge a firearm at an inhabited dwelling house

(id., §§ 664, 246), a felony (count 2); and that on January 27,

2009, he committed another murder for the benefit of a street 

gang (id., § 186.22) (count 3). A special allegation alleged that 

J.C. “comes within the provisions of Welfare and Institutions 

Code section 707, [former subdivision] (d)(2)(B) in that he was 15 

years old at the time [of the offenses].” The People claim J.C. was 

19 years old when “he was apprehended,” and a transfer to 

criminal court is permitted pursuant to section 707, subdivision 

(a)(2). That section authorizes a transfer motion where the 

juvenile was 14 or 15 years of age at the time of the offense “but 

was not apprehended prior to the end of juvenile court 

jurisdiction.” (§ 707, subd. (a)(2).) 

In 2017, the People filed a petition in the juvenile court for 

a transfer hearing to determine whether the case should be tried 

in a criminal court. After a hearing, the court ruled the case met 

the criteria to be transferred to criminal court. 

In 2021, the superior court denied J.C.’s motion to return 

the case to the juvenile court. J.C. filed a petition for writ of 

mandate in this court to challenge that order. We denied that 
3

petition on September 9, 2021.2 The California Supreme Court 

denied review.

On August 15, 2022, November 8, 2022, and December 7, 

2022, J.C. filed motions to return him “to the jurisdiction of the 

juvenile court.” J.C. indicated that these were motions to 

“reconsider” the superior court’s denial of his 2021 motion to 

transfer the case to the juvenile court. In his last motion he also

requested the superior court to review “the summary denial of his 

petition for writ of mandate” filed by this court. 

On December 22, 2022, the superior court denied J.C.’s

motion to return jurisdiction to the juvenile court. J.C. appealed 

from that order. 

On April 6, 2023, the superior court granted J.C.’s motion 

to transfer the case back to juvenile court for a new transfer 

hearing in compliance with the new standards for transfer 

hearings required by Assembly Bill No. 2361. (§ 707, subd. 

(a)(3).)

DISCUSSION

Dismissal of the Appeal

The People claim this appeal must be dismissed because it

does not fall within the provisions of section 801, subdivision (a). 

In his rely brief, J.C. agrees. 

Section 801, subdivision (a), provides, in relevant part, “An 

order transferring a minor from the juvenile court to a court of 

criminal jurisdiction shall be subject to immediate appellate 

review if a notice of appeal is filed within 30 days of the order 

transferring the minor to a court of criminal jurisdiction.” (Italics 

added.)

2 The People’s request for judicial notice filed August 21, 

2023, is granted.
4

Section 801 is the section upon which J.C. based his appeal. 

But the December 22, 2022, order that J.C. appealed from is not 

an order transferring a minor from the juvenile court to criminal 

court. It was a superior court order denying J.C.’s motion for 

reconsideration of the prior 2021 superior court order that denied 

a transfer back to the juvenile court. The parties are correct that:

1) this statute does not provide appellate jurisdiction for the 

subject matter of this appeal, and 2) J.C. may not appeal from an 

order denying an untimely motion for reconsideration. (§ 801, 

subd. (a); Morton v. Wagner (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 963, 968-969; 

Stephen v. Enterprise Rent-A-Car (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 806, 

818.) 

Moreover, on April 6, 2023, the superior court granted 

J.C.’s motion to transfer his case back to juvenile court for a new 

transfer hearing to comply with the new standards required by 

Assembly Bill No. 2361. As the People note, if the juvenile court 

orders J.C.’s case transferred back to criminal court, he will be 

entitled to file an appeal from that order. (§ 801.)

DISPOSITION

The appeal is dismissed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

GILBERT, P. J.

We concur:

BALTODANO, J. CODY, J.
David M. Hirsch, Judge

Superior Court County of Ventura

______________________________

Laini Millar Melnick, , under appointment by the Court of 

Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Erik Nasarenko, District Attorney, W. Taylor Waters, 

Deputy District Attorney, for Plaintiff and Respondent.