Court Opinion

ID: 9892435
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-23 20:04:31.703313+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:06:53.742127
License: Public Domain

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     NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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,                                                  2d Crim. No. B325815
                                                          (Super. Ct. No. 2013009594)
     Plaintiff and Respondent,                                 (Ventura County)

v.

J.C.,

     Defendant and Appellant.

      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.

       All statutory references are to the Welfare and
         1

Institutions Code unless otherwise stated.
       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

                                 2
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.

                                 3
       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.

                                 4
                    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.