State high court affirms retroactive ban on direct filing of juvenile cases in adult court

The state Supreme Court affirmed unanimously Thursday that Proposition 57, which eliminated direct filing of juvenile delinquency cases in adult court, could be applied retroactively to cases in progress when the initiative passed.

Central to the court's reasoning was its previous ruling in In re: Estrada (1965) 63 Cal.2d 740, which held that a statute that reduced the punishment for a crime applied retroactively to any case in which the judgment was not final before the statute took effect.

In the opinion written by Justice Ming Chin, the court noted that Estrada is not "directly on point" because Proposition 57 does not reduce the punishment for a crime, but he said the same rationale applied. People v. Superior Court (Lara), 2018 DJDAR 1144.

"The possibility of being treated as a juvenile in juvenile court -- where rehabilitation is the goal -- rather than being tried and sentenced as an adult can result in dramatically different and more lenient treatment," Chin wrote. "Therefore, Proposition 57 reduces the possible punishment for a class of persons, namely juveniles."

The original matter arose in June 2016 when the Riverside County district attorney's office direct filed to adult court the case of Pablo Ullisses Lara, Jr., a minor charged with raping a 7-year-old girl. Voters passed Proposition 57 in November 2016, and the initiative went into effect the next day.

Under the terms of the new law, Lara's counsel moved for his matter to be transferred to juvenile court for a fitness hearing, in which a judge would make the determination as to whether the case would be heard in adult court or juvenile court. The superior court judge granted the motion and the 4th District Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that Proposition 57 applied prospectively.

Though it agreed with the appellate court's conclusion that Lara was entitled to a fitness hearing, the Supreme Court disagreed with the lower court's rationale, which had rejected Estrada.

Summarizing Estrada's meaning, the state high court said, "The Estrada rule rests on an inference that, in the absence of contrary indications, a legislative body ordinarily intends for ameliorative changes to the criminal law to extend as broadly as possible, distinguishing only as necessary between sentences that are final and sentences that are not."

The Supreme Court ruling noted that procedural requirements for fitness hearings to determine a minor's eligibility for trial in in adult court have been in place since 1975. The historical rule was changed by initiatives in 1999 and 2000, but Proposition 57 "largely returned California to the historical rule," the high court said. In an amicus brief, San Diego County prosecutors had argued that Proposition 57 was not retroactive.

They cited the fact that the initiative left unaltered a penal code section which protects juveniles who are tried in adult court yet are ultimately convicted of crimes that do not permit direct filing to adult court.

If that occurs, penal code section 1170.17 requires the court to have a post-conviction fitness hearing as to whether the juvenile should continue to be treated as an adult. Because defendants who were not yet convicted when Proposition 57 took effect are entitled to this post-conviction hearing, the prosecutors argued, voters did not intend to apply the initiative retroactively.

The state Supreme Court rejected this argument, calling the referenced penal code section "a poor fit both textually and practically."

"As a practical matter, postponing juvenile court proceedings until after the juvenile has been convicted in adult court ... would entail conducting jury trials that will, in some cases, then be obviated by proceedings in the juvenile court," Chin wrote. "That the voters intended to create such a wasteful system is unlikely."

In an email, the San Diego County district attorney's office said it respected the court's decision and the clarity it brought to the issue of appropriate trial venues, but noted it would impact several serious cases involving violent crimes.

"Today's ruling by the California Supreme Court will affect an estimated 13 pending criminal cases in San Diego County where juveniles were charged as adults in serious crimes like sexual assault and murder," said Communications Director Steve Walker.

"The cases include one defendant charged with the killing of Oceanside Police Officer Dan Bessant, which will now go before a juvenile court judge to determine if the case should be adjudicated in juvenile court or tried in adult court," Walker added.

Riverside County Deputy Public Defender Laura Arnold, who argued the case before the state high court, said in an email, "This is not my victory -- it's California's. The voters set this in motion with the adoption of Proposition 57, and the court finished it, with its clarification of the rationale of Estrada and its recognition of the voters' intent."

John Hall, spokesman for the Riverside County district attorney's office, said, "We respect the California Supreme Court's opinion and appreciate that this issue has been clarified moving forward.

"The court's ruling respected the will of the voters and the vast difference between juvenile and adult justice," said an ebullient Sue Burrell of the Pacific Juvenile Defender Center, who co-authored an amicus brief arguing in favor of retroactivity.

"I think that the court really took to heart the intent of Proposition 57, and they analyzed the Estrada decision not looking at punishment of one person, but a whole class of juveniles," Burrell said. Those juveniles would now be able to benefit from services available to juveniles but not to adults.

Burrell said she saw a connection between this decision and the 1985 California Supreme Court decision in Ramona R. v. Superior Court (1985) 37 Cal. 3d 802, which described transferring a child to the adult system as "the worst punishment the juvenile system is empowered to inflict."