<< News Scan | Main | Attacking the Victim: 2019 Version >>


The continuing saga of juvenile criminals not being tried as adults

| 0 Comments

Proposition 57, passed by California voters in November 2016, mandated that all allegations of criminal conduct against a minor (under age 18) must be initiated in juvenile court.  Pre-Proposition 57, minors ages 14+ could be tried in adult court in 1 of 3 ways: (1) statutory waiver; (2) prosecutorial waiver; or (3) judicial waiver.  Proposition 57 eliminated options 1 and 2.  In early 2018, the California Supreme Court held that Proposition 57 applied retroactively to all cases that were not final at the time of its enactment.  (See my post here for more details).

Alexander Cervantes was 14 years old when he was directly charged as an adult for committing horrific sex crimes against a 13-year-old girl.  Cervantes was convicted by a jury and his case was pending on appeal when Proposition 57 passed.  (CJLF filed a brief in his case arguing that Prop 57 should not be applied retroactively).  He benefited from the Proposition's retroactivity and his case was sent back to the juvenile court so that a judge could decide if his case should stay there or be transferred to adult court.  However, while his transfer hearing was pending, former California Governor Jerry Brown signed SB 1391.  SB 1391 "repeal[ed] the authority of a District Attorney to make a motion to transfer" 14- and 15-year-old offenders from juvenile court to adult court.  There is an odd exception in the law for 14- and 15-year-olds who "were not apprehended prior to the end of juvenile court jurisdiction."  SB 1391 went into effect on 1/1/19.  In a nutshell, 14- and 15-year-old criminals must stay and be tried in juvenile court and in no way can a judge decide if he or she should be transferred to adult court.  This is true regardless of the crime committed.    

Cervantes again benefited from the new law and moved to dismiss the D.A.'s transfer motion. The juvenile court agreed with him and terminated the transfer proceedings. The Solano County D.A.'s Office filed a petition for a writ of mandate in the Court of Appeal (1st Appellate District) seeking to strike down SB 1391 as an unconstitutional amendment to Proposition 57. On Tuesday, the Court of Appeal denied the D.A.'s writ petition and held that "SB 1391 is consistent with and furthers the intent of Proposition 57." (The Court's opinion can be found here)

Proposition 57 explicitly states that it can be amended by a majority vote of the legislature only if "such amendments are consistent with and further the intent" of the Proposition. One of the express intended purposes of Proposition 57 was to require a judge to decide if certain juvenile offenders should be transferred to adult court. The D.A. argued that SB 1391 completely removes a judge's ability to decide if a 14- or 15-year-old should be transferred to adult court and is thus in no way consistent with the intent and purpose of the Proposition as it was approved by the voters. The Court of Appeal disagreed and found that

SB 1391 maintains this requirement; no minor may be prosecuted in criminal court unless a juvenile court first determines that the minor is unfit for the juvenile system. SB 1391 certainly narrows the class of minors who are subject to review by a juvenile court for potential transfer--eliminating most 14- and 15-year-olds from consideration--but it in no way detracts from Proposition 57's stated intent that, where a transfer decision must be made, a judge rather than a prosecutor must make the decision.

Proposition 57 was applicable to all 14, 15, 16, and 17-year-old criminal offenders. In all four of those age groups, a judge was required to decide if the juvenile should be transferred to adult court. While true that SB 1391 makes little change to that law with respect to 16- and 17-year-olds, it completely changes the law with respect to 14- and 15-year-olds. So, yes, SB 1391 expressly prohibits what Proposition 57 expressly authorized. I don't know how much more inconsistent the legislature's amendment to Proposition 57 can be as applied to 14- and 15-year-old offenders.

Leave a comment

Monthly Archives