Source: https://scocal.stanford.edu/opinion/people-v-super-ct-lara-34561
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 18:21:36+00:00

Document:
which the judgment was not final before the statute took effect. In People v.
judgment was not final at the time it was enacted.
reasons, we affirm the judgment.
was seven and eight years old when the crimes occurred.
March 13, 2017, the Court of Appeal issued an opinion denying the petition.
Proposition 57 entitles defendant to a fitness hearing.
hearing but denied the People’s request to transfer the matter back to adult court.
the court.” (Manduley v. Superior Court (2002) 27 Cal.4th 537, 548, fn. omitted.
Welfare and Institutions Code so as to eliminate direct filing by prosecutors.
and whether the minor can be rehabilitated. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 707, subd.
The Vela court summarized the procedures in the juvenile court system.
filing a juvenile petition, rather than a criminal complaint. (See §§ 653.7, 655.
jurisdictional hearing is equivalent to a ‘bench trial’ in a criminal court. (See Cal.
‘true’ and if the minor comes within its jurisdiction. (See § 602 et seq.
court. (§ 725.5; In re Devin J. (1984) 155 Cal.App.3d 1096, 1100 [202 Cal.Rptr.
age. (§ 607, subd. (f).)” (Vela, supra, 11 Cal.App.5th at pp. 73-74, rev.gr.
properly received the benefit of Proposition 57.
is a canon of statutory interpretation rather than a constitutional mandate.
enacted after the petitioner committed the offense but before he was sentenced.
convicting the defendant of the act is not final.” (Id. at p. 745.
it ameliorated the possible punishment for a class of persons, namely juveniles.
But the same inference of retroactivity should apply.
was entitled to a transfer hearing.
to life, or a discharge from the DJJ’s custody at a maximum of 23 years of age.
and several other factors relating to his or her youth and immaturity. (§ 707, subd.
system of direct filing was ‘too severe.’ (Estrada, supra, 63 Cal.2d at p. 745.
11 Cal.App.5th at pp. 77-78, rev.gr.
We agree with Vela that Estrada’s inference of retroactivity applies here.
inconclusive. Proposition 57 and the ballot materials are silent on the question.
for juveniles.” (Voter Information Guide, Gen. Elec. (Nov. 8, 2016) text of Prop.
well as its true findings as to the sentencing enhancements, will remain in place.
second trial, in the juvenile court.” (Vela, supra, 11 Cal.App.5th at p. 81, rev.gr.
§ 1260),” the court ordered a limited remand. (Id. at p. 81.
‘disposition’ within its discretion.” (Vela, supra, 11 Cal.App.5th at p. 82, rev.gr.
with Vela, supra, 11 Cal.App.5th 68, review granted.
decision from this court precluded them from concluding otherwise. (People v.
increased incentives for good behavior.” (Id. at p. 325.
We agree with the Vela court’s distinction of Brown, supra, 54 Cal.4th 314.
including Vela.” (Vela, supra, 11 Cal.App.5th at p. 81, rev.gr.
Brown, could Estrada’s inference in favor of retroactivity apply.
invoking Estrada’s inference in this case.
reduce the punishment prescribed for certain third strike defendants.” (Id. at p.
conditions. (Id. at pp. 655-656.
that the amendment should be applied only prospectively.” (Conley, at p. 656.
granted, which was similar to the Vela remedy as adapted to the precise situation.
more complex than the procedure for adults—simply filing the case in adult court.
reason to deny the hearing.
intended not to apply Proposition 57 retroactively.
although not its reasoning, and lift the stay we previously imposed.
We also disapprove the Court of Appeal’s opinion in this case (People v.
Superior Court (Lara), supra, 9 Cal.App.5th 753), and the opinions in People v.
471; People v. Navarra, supra, 16 Cal.App.5th 173, review granted; People v.
Superior Court (Walker), supra, 12 Cal.App.5th 687, review granted; People v.
the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.
Michael A. Hestrin, District Attorney, Elaina Gambera Bentley, Assistant District Attorney, Kelli M.
Catlett, Ivy B. Fitzpatrick and Donald W. Ostertag, Deputy District Attorneys, for Petitioner.
District Attorneys, for San Diego County District Attorney as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Petitioner.
Curiae on behalf of Real Party in Interest.
SCOCAL, People v. Super. Ct. (Lara) , S241231 available at: (https://scocal.stanford.edu/opinion/people-v-super-ct-lara-34561) (last visited Sunday April 21, 2019).

References: v.

 v. 
 § 707
 § 602

§ 1260
 v.

 v.

 v.

 v. 
 v.

 v.

 v.