Narith S. v. Superior Court of L. A. Cnty.

42 Cal.App.5th 1131

256 Cal.Rptr.3d 260

NARITH S., Petitioner,

v.The SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent;

The People, Real Party in Interest.

B296384

Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 3, California.

Filed December 4, 2019

Cyn Yamashiro, Inglewood, and Markéta Sims, Independent Juvenile Defender Program, for Petitioner.

No appearance for Respondent.

Jackie Lacey, District Attorney, Phyllis Asayama and John Pomeroy, Deputy District Attorneys, for Real Party in Interest.

EGERTON, J.

Narith S. petitions for a writ of mandate requiring the trial court to vacate its order denying his motion to remand his case to juvenile court. Narith was 15 years old at the time of the offenses with which he is charged. The trial court ruled Senate Bill No. 1391 (SB 1391) unconstitutional. We agree with our colleagues in the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Districts who have recently confronted this issue and concluded that SB 1391 is constitutional. Accordingly, we grant Narith’s petition.

BACKGROUND

In 2015 the People charged Narith with nine counts of attempted murder as well as shooting at an inhabited dwelling and discharging a firearm from a motor vehicle.¹ The case arose from a gang-related drive-by shooting at an apartment complex. After detectives gave Narith the Miranda admonition,² he told them he had fired a number of shots from the back seat of his friend’s car after yelling "Fuck Chongos" (a derogatory term for the gang that is his gang’s rival). Five victims were struck with bullets; all five survived. Narith was 15 years old at the time of the alleged crimes.

Narith was arraigned in criminal (adult) court in November 2015. A year later his counsel moved to remand his case to juvenile court. In January 2017 the trial court certified Narith to the juvenile court. In June 2018 the juvenile court found Narith unfit for juvenile court and returned him to criminal court.

On January 3, 2019, Narith filed a motion to remand his case to juvenile court, citing SB 1391. The district attorney opposed the motion, arguing SB 1391 is "an unconstitutional amendment to the provisions of Welfare and Institutions Code section 707, as amended by an initiative statute, Proposition 57." Narith filed a reply.

On February 20, 2019, the court heard the motion. The court ruled SB 1391 unconstitutional and therefore denied Narith’s motion to be transferred back to the juvenile court. Narith filed a petition for a writ of mandate and a request for a stay of his adult proceedings. We issued an order to show cause and a stay.

DISCUSSION

1. Proposition 57 and SB 1391

In November 2016 the voters approved Proposition 57, the Public Safety and Reconciliation Act of 2016. ( People v. Superior Court (Alexander C.) (2019) 34 Cal.App.5th 994, 997, 246 Cal.Rptr.3d 712 ( Alexander C. ).) Proposition 57 " ‘largely returned California to the historical rule’ " in effect before 2000 that "required a juvenile court to declare a minor unfit for the juvenile system before a district attorney could prosecute that minor in criminal court." ( Alexander C. , at pp. 997-998, 246 Cal.Rptr.3d 712.) Under Proposition 57, " ‘ "[c]ertain categories of minors ... can still be tried in criminal court, but only after a juvenile court judge conducts a transfer hearing to consider various factors such as the minor’s maturity, degree of criminal sophistication, prior delinquent history, and whether the minor can be rehabilitated." ’ " ( Alexander C., at p. 998, 246 Cal.Rptr.3d 712, quoting People v. Superior Court (Lara) (2018) 4 Cal.5th 299, 305, 228 Cal.Rptr.3d 394, 410 P.3d 22.)

Proposition 57 set forth five purposes: "1. Protect and enhance public safety. [¶] 2. Save money by reducing wasteful spending on prisons. [¶] 3. Prevent federal courts from indiscriminately releasing prisoners. [¶] 4. Stop the revolving door of crime by emphasizing rehabilitation, especially for juveniles. [¶] 5. Require a judge, not a prosecutor, to decide whether juveniles should be tried in adult court." ( People v. Superior Court (S.L.) (2019) 40 Cal.App.5th 114, 121, review granted Nov. 26, 2019, S258432 ( S.L . ), quoting Voter Information Guide, Gen. Elec. (Nov. 8, 2016) text of Prop. 57, § 2, p. 141 (Voter Guide).) Proposition 57 "authorize[d] legislative amendment of its provisions that amended [Welfare and Institutions Code] section 707, ‘so long as such amendments are consistent with and further the intent of this act by a statute that is passed by a majority vote of the members of each house of the Legislature and signed by the Governor.’ " ( People v. Superior Court (K.L.) (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 529, 535, 248 Cal.Rptr.3d 555 ( K.L . ), quoting Voter Guide, § 5, p. 145.)

In September 2018 the Governor approved SB 1391 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.) (Stats. 2018, ch. 1012, § 1). It took effect January 1, 2019. SB 1391 "eliminates the district attorneys’ ability to seek transfer of 14 and 15 year olds from juvenile court to criminal court" (subject to a narrow exception if the minor is " ‘not apprehended prior to the end of juvenile court jurisdiction’ "). ( Alexander C ., supra , 34 Cal.App.5th at p. 998, 246 Cal.Rptr.3d 712 ; Welf. & Inst. Code, § 707, subd. (a)(2).) The Legislature declared that SB 1391 amended Proposition 57 and "is consistent with and furthers the intent of Proposition 57." (S.B. 1391, § 3; Alexander C ., at p. 998, 246 Cal.Rptr.3d 712.)

2. Five appellate courts have upheld SB 1391 as constitutional; one appellate court has disagreed

A number of district attorneys—including the District Attorney of Los Angeles County—have challenged SB 1391 as unconstitutional.³ Here, the district attorney argues, "In Prop. 57, voters provided juvenile judges discretion to determine whether 14 and 15 year-old offenders should be rehabilitated in the juvenile system. SB 1391 removed that discretion and in the process violated the California Constitution." The district attorney states, "Section 5 of Prop. 57 allows amendments by the Legislature ‘so long as such amendments are consistent with and further the intent of this act ....’ [¶] By entirely eliminating the ability to transfer any 14- and 15-year-olds to adult court, SB 1391 improperly upset the balance struck by the voters.... As such, it is unconstitutional."

In the nine months since the trial court here found SB 1391 unconstitutional, five appellate courts have rejected the argument the district attorney makes. In Alexander C ., decided April 30, 2019, the First District Court of Appeal considered the case of a 14-year-old charged with two counts of attempted murder, two counts of torture, and "various sex offenses." ( Alexander C ., supra , 34 Cal.App.5th at p. 998, 246 Cal.Rptr.3d 712.) After SB 1391 took effect, Alexander C. moved to dismiss the district attorney’s motion to transfer him to criminal court. The Superior Court of Solano County terminated the transfer proceeding and the district attorney petitioned for a writ of mandate, arguing SB 1391 was an invalid amendment to Proposition 57 because it was not consistent with Proposition 57 and did not further the proposition’s intent. ( Alexander C., at p. 999, 246 Cal.Rptr.3d 712.)

The Court of Appeal denied the district attorney’s writ petition. The court noted Proposition 57 "sought to promote juvenile rehabilitation by channeling more minors into the juvenile system." ( Alexander C ., supra , 34 Cal.App.5th at p. 1000, 246 Cal.Rptr.3d 712.) The court continued, "[SB] 1391 takes Proposition 57’s goal of promoting juvenile rehabilitation one step further by ensuring that almost all who commit crimes at the age of 14 or 15 will be processed through the juvenile system," where they will receive treatment, counseling, and education. ( Ibid . ) The court concluded, "It is apparent that [SB] 1391 is consistent with and furthers Proposition 57’s goal of emphasizing rehabilitation for juvenile offenders." ( Ibid . )

In an opinion filed June 19, 2019, the Third District Court of Appeal agreed. In K.L ., the district attorney had charged two 15-year-olds—K.L. and R.Z.—in separate cases, with murder, attempted murder, and shooting into an occupied vehicle, with gang and personal discharge of a firearm allegations, and murder, respectively. ( K.L., supra, 36 Cal.App.5th at pp. 533-534, 248 Cal.Rptr.3d 555.) Juvenile courts had found both minors unfit and granted the district attorney’s motion to transfer them to criminal court. After SB 1391 took effect, however, the trial courts dismissed the transfer motions and sent the matters to juvenile court. ( K.L ., at pp. 533-534, 248 Cal.Rptr.3d 555.)

The district attorney petitioned for a writ of mandate. The appellate court denied the writ. The court noted, "Taken as a whole, and in the context of juvenile offenders, it appears the intent of Proposition 57 was to reduce the number of youths who would be prosecuted as adults." The court said SB 1391 "furthers the stated purpose and intent of Proposition 57 to have fewer youths removed from the juvenile justice system." The court stated, "[W]hile Proposition 57 did continue to permit transfer of 14 and 15 year olds to adult court for prosecution, there is nothing in the language of Proposition 57 or the ballot materials to suggest that it was a specific intent of Proposition 57 to ensure that 14- and 15-year-old juvenile offenders would continue to be subject to adult criminal prosecution. [SB] 1391 does not conflict with Proposition 57 but advances its stated intent and purpose to reduce the number of youths to be tried in adult court, reduce the number of incarcerated persons in state prisons, and emphasize rehabilitation for juveniles. Accordingly, we conclude [SB] 1391 is not an unconstitutional amendment of section 707 as modified by Proposition 57." ( K.L. , supra , 36 Cal.App.5th at p. 541, 248 Cal.Rptr.3d 555.)

On August 5, 2019, in a two-to-one decision, the Fifth District Court of Appeal concluded SB 1391 did not unconstitutionally amend Proposition 57. In T.D., supra, ...