1

Filed 5/16/23 P. v. Blay CA1/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or 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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

DEANDRE MAURICE BLAY,

Defendant and Appellant.

 A166315

 (Marin County

 Super. Ct. No. JV-26919A)

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

After a jury found Deandre Maurice Blay guilty of first degree murder, 

preventing a victim from testifying, and conspiracy (Pen. Code, §§ 187, 189, 

subd. (a), 136.1, 182), with true findings on special circumstance allegations 

(Pen. Code, § 190.2, subd. (a)(10) [killing to prevent testimony], (15) [by lying 

in wait]) and myriad sentence enhancement allegations, the Marin Superior 

Court sentenced him to 25 years to life in prison with the possibility of parole.

(People v. Blay (Sept. 16, 2019, A138380) [nonpub. opn.], mod. Oct. 15, 2019, 

pp. 2, 137–138, 139.)2

1 Cal. Stds. Jud. Admin., § 8.1; Ct. App., First Dist., Local Rules of Ct., 

rule 19.

2 We cite this court’s prior opinion only for background. (Cal. Rules of 

Court, rule 8.1115(a), (b); The Utility Reform Network v. Public Utilities Com.

(2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 945, 951, fn. 3.)
2

Though Blay was 17 years old when he committed these crimes, the 

People charged him in criminal court in 2009 under former Welfare and 

Institutions Code section 707, subdivision (d)(1). (See Stats. 2008, ch. 179, 

§ 236, pp. 903, 905–906, 907, eff. Jan. 1, 2009.) While his prior appeal was 

pending, voters passed “The Public Safety and Rehabilitation Act of 2016”

(Off. Voter Information Guide, Gen. Elec. (Nov. 8, 2016), text of Prop. 57, § 1, 

p. 141), amending former Welfare and Institutions Code sections 602 and 707

to require the People to charge a minor in juvenile court unless the juvenile 

court determines after a transfer hearing that the minor should be tried and 

sentenced as an adult (Off. Voter Information Guide, supra, text of Prop. 57, 

§§ 4.1–4.2, pp. 141–145). (See People v. Superior Court (Lara) (2018) 4 

Cal.5th 299, 303, 305–307 [background], 303–304 [act applies retroactively]; 

accord, People v. Padilla (2022) 13 Cal.5th 152, 167.) In disposing of Blay’s

prior appeal, this court remanded the matter to the Marin Juvenile Court to 

conduct such a transfer hearing (People v. Blay, supra, A138380, at pp. 138–

139, 140–141), which it did.

After six days of testimony from 11 witnesses, including Blay and four 

experts, and after both written and oral closing arguments, the court issued a 

thorough 26-page decision in September 2022 on what it described as a “close 

call,” concluding: “The People have met their burden under California Rule 

of Court 5.7770(a) [sic] and established that [there should be a] transfer of 

jurisdiction to criminal court jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence.” 

Blay appeals that decision, not because of any alleged error but arguing the 

2022 amendment to Welfare and Institutions Code section 707 entitles him to 

a new juvenile transfer hearing. The People agree he is entitled to a new 

hearing, and so do we. We independently review statutory interpretation and 

application. (People v. Childs (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 1079, 1101.)
3

In September 2022 the Legislature amended the Arnold–Kennick 

Juvenile Court Law (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 200 et seq.) in part to limit the 

juvenile court’s power to transfer a minor to the criminal court for trial to 

cases in which the juvenile court finds “by clear and convincing evidence that 

the minor is not amenable to rehabilitation while under the jurisdiction of the 

juvenile court.” (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 707, subd. (a)(3), amended by Stats. 

2022, ch. 330, § 1, No. 5A Deering’s Adv. Legis. Service, p. 751, eff. Jan. 1, 

2023; see Assem. Bill No. 2361 (2021–2022 Reg. Sess.) § 1.) At the time of 

Blay’s juvenile transfer hearing, the burden of proof was lower: by a

preponderance of the evidence. (Conservatorship of O.B. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 

989, 995 [clear and convincing evidence is a higher burden of proof].)3 We 

agree with the parties that this amendment is an ameliorative change in the 

law that applies retroactively to Blay and that he is entitled to a new juvenile 

transfer hearing. (People v. Superior Court (Lara), supra, 4 Cal.5th at pp. 

303, 308; see In re E.P. (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 409, 415–417 [Assem. Bill. No. 

2361 applies retroactively], petn. for review filed Apr. 25, 2023, S279666;

In re T.A. (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 347, 351–352 [same], petn. for review filed 

Apr. 24, 2023, S279635.) We express no opinion on what the hearing’s 

outcome should be.4

3 The Juvenile Rules (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.500 et seq.) still reflect 

the prior, lower burden of proof. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.770(a).)

4 “[T]he . . . remedy we recognize today does not allow [Blay] to raise 

claims unrelated to his sentence. . . . He must receive a transfer hearing in a 

juvenile court, where the court will decide whether criminal adjudication is 

appropriate . . . . Whatever potential that hearing may have for reducing his 

punishment (the nonfinal part of his judgment), it does not authorize . . . 

relitigation of guilt.” (People v. Padilla, supra, 13 Cal.5th at pp. 169–170.)
4

DISPOSITION

The Marin Superior Court’s order of September 27, 2022, is reversed, 

and the matter is remanded with directions to refer the case to the juvenile 

court for a hearing on whether it would have transferred the case to the 

criminal court applying the current law. If the juvenile court determines it 

would not have transferred the case to the criminal court applying the 

current law, it shall treat Blay’s convictions as juvenile adjudications and 

order an appropriate disposition. If the juvenile court determines it would 

have transferred the case to the criminal court applying the current law, it 

shall transfer the case to the criminal court, and Blay’s convictions shall be 

reinstated as of that date.

_________________________

Jackson, P. J.

WE CONCUR:

_________________________

Simons, J.

_________________________

Langhorne, J.*

A166315/People v. Deandre Maurice Blay

* Judge of the Superior Court of Napa County, assigned by the Chief 

Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.