California Court of Appeal Jun 5, 2025 No. E084699Unpublished
Filed 6/5/25 In re B.F. CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
In re B.F., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
THE PEOPLE, E084699 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super.Ct.No. INJ1900372) v. OPINION B.F.,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Emily A. Benjamini,
Judge. Affirmed.
Laura Vavakin, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General,
Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney General, Melissa Mandel, Tami Falkenstein
Hennick and James Spradley, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
1
On September 24, 2024, the juvenile court granted plaintiff and respondent’s, the
People, Welfare and Institutions Code section 707 motion to transfer defendant and
appellant, B.F. (minor born July 2004), from the jurisdiction of the juvenile court to that
of the criminal court. Minor contends insufficient evidence supports the juvenile court’s
On March 24, 2022, responding officers found the victim lying outside an
apartment suffering from multiple gunshot wounds. Paramedics pronounced him dead at
the scene. The forensic pathologist determined the victim died from multiple gunshot
wounds.
The reporting party said he heard approximately five gunshots. He saw the victim
standing on the sidewalk and the shooter pointing a handgun at him. The shooter returned
to a waiting vehicle, in which he rode off. The reporting party captured the shooting on
his home’s surveillance camera.
A review of the surveillance footage from two cameras reflected a vehicle stopped
in front of the apartment. The victim, who was walking down the sidewalk, approached
1 It is assumed for purposes of a transfer hearing that minor committed the charged offenses. (People v. Superior Court (Rodrigo O.) (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 1297, 1303 [“[T]he criteria the court must use to determine fitness are based upon the premise that the minor did in fact commit the offense.”]; accord, People v. Superior Court (Jones) (1998) 18 Cal.4th 667, 682; accord, Rene C. v. Superior Court (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 1, 10 [“[T]he factors used to assess fitness presuppose that the minor committed the offense.”]; accord, Kevin P. v. Superior Court (2020) 57 Cal.App.5th 173, 189.)
2
the open, passenger side window of the vehicle. An occupant of the vehicle asked the
victim if he was from JT2 The victim answered, “‘Yeah, why.”
The male passenger responded by shooting one round at the victim through the car
window. The shooter then exited the vehicle as the victim ran away. The shooter fired an
additional three rounds at the victim. The shooter struck the victim multiple times. The
shooter then reentered the vehicle, in which he fled.
Officers identified the vehicle using a license plate reader. They located the
vehicle a short time later. The officers identified the driver, the only person in the vehicle
at the time. He was a BDH member. Surveillance records from nearby businesses
identified from the driver’s cell phone location records throughout the day reflected the
presence of he and minor; minor was wearing the same clothing as the shooter in the video
recordings.
Officers determined minor was with the driver “prior to, during, and immediately
following the homicide based on call detail records from both [their] phones, and
surveillance video footage from several businesses and residences.” Minor was on
probation at the time of the shooting.
2 J.T. “is known to represent the ‘Jackson Terrace’ [(JT)] criminal street gang and . . . the victim was a documented member of [JT]. Also of note, the ‘Barrio Dream Homes’ [(BDH)] criminal street gang is a known rival of [JT].”
3
On January 5, 2020, the juvenile court had sustained allegations that minor had
committed two robberies (Pen. Code, § 211)3 while personally using a firearm
(§ 12022.53, subd. (b)).
During one of the robberies, minor walked out of a clothing store without paying;
he then threatened staff with a gun when they confronted him. The employee continued to
watch minor; when minor noticed this, he reached for his waistband and stated, “I told you
to go back inside bitch, or I’m going to shoot you.”
During the other robbery, a loss prevention officer followed minor and another
suspect as they left a store and began to load stolen merchandise into a vehicle. As the
loss prevention officer attempted to take a picture of the vehicle’s license plate, minor ran
toward her, lifted his shirt, and showed her the handle of a firearm he had tucked in his
jeans; minor then stated, “Back up mother fucker or I’ll shoot you.”
On another occasion, minor and an additional suspect entered a store, took beer,
and when the store clerk asked if they intended to pay for the alcohol, minor shouted,
“Fuck that I’m leaving bitch, Dream Homes!” Minor had an active warrant at the time of
the incident and was later arrested. On June 14, 2021, the court sustained an allegation
that minor had committed petty theft. (§ 488.) The court committed minor to a Youth
Treatment and Education Center (YTEC).
During minor’s total of four years on probation, the juvenile court had found minor
in violation of his probation on three prior occasions. The court had issued four warrants
3 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
4
for minor. Minor had received probation services that included two opportunities in the
Wraparound Program and placements with a resource family, in a facility, and in YTEC.
On May 19, 2022, the People filed a subsequent juvenile delinquency petition
alleging minor committed murder. The People further alleged that in committing the
murder, minor personally and intentionally discharged a firearm causing death
(§§ 12022.53, subd. (d) & 1192.7, subd. (c)(8)), intentionally discharged a firearm from a
motor vehicle with the intent to cause death (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(21)), and that minor
committed the murder for the benefit of a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(C)).
On the same date, the People filed a motion to transfer the matter to a court of criminal
jurisdiction.
The court appointed three psychologists, who each filed separate reports regarding
minor’s suitability and amenability to treatment under the juvenile court’s jurisdiction.4
Minor reported that his father had been in prison since minor was eight years old,
after minor witnessed his father stab someone. Minor witnessed the murder of two
brothers-in-law, when he was respectively, five and six years old. Dr. Adrianne Nelson
opined, “it was evident that [minor] had several adverse childhood experiences and minor
to major traumas that have influenced the trajectory of his childhood and adolescence.”
Minor informed Dr. Nelson that when he was four years old, his mother’s ex-
boyfriend punched minor in the stomach and threatened him not to tell his mother. He
reported that the ex-boyfriend physically abused minor’s “mother in front of him. He
4 Dr. William Jones also filed an addendum report.
5
described how disturbed he would get listening to his mother’s screams. Minor reported
he was scared to go to school for fear that while he was gone the boyfriend would
physically abuse his mother.” He related being bullied in school.
Minor reported varying degrees of drug and alcohol use and abuse, including binge
drinking and the use of methamphetamine, marijuana, and cocaine. On March 17, 2022,
while on probation, minor tested positive for cocaine.
Minor admitted being a member of BDH since he was 14 years old.5 He had “DH”
tattooed on his forearms and had two gang related tattoos on his face. Minor had
remained in the gang at the time of the reports, although he reported attempting to end that
involvement.
Dr. Jones opined that minor “showed some criminal sophistication regarding
apparently utilizing a weapon. However, he is very criminally unsophisticated in terms of
not being aware of security cameras and not giving much thought—if any—to possible
negative consequences for his alleged criminal behavior. His impulsivity is certainly not
criminally sophisticated.” Dr. Jones further noted that, “Past interventions by the
Probation Department over two years have not been very successful, although the
interventions were well considered. . . . He has a fair prognosis that he could be
rehabilitated during the Juvenile Court jurisdiction since this involves a long period of
time with mental health treatment.”
5 Minor denied gang involvement to Dr. Jones.
6
Dr. Nelson opined that minor “does not come across as the most criminally
sophisticated youth.” “Presently, [minor] has a fair prognosis for being rehabilitated
under the juvenile court jurisdiction. [Minor] would be more successful with
rehabilitation in the juvenile justice system if he was able to move away and not return to
the ‘valley area’ for several years. This would allow him time to disconnect completely
from his gang. He would need to be placed in a highly structured program . . . .”
A probation officer filed a transfer report noting that minor “participated in the
Wraparound Program with his mother from January 24, 2020, through June 3, 2020, when
the family was closed out due to lack of participation.” “[T]he family regularly no
showed to both family and individual meetings with their Wraparound team. The minor
also failed to meet with his assigned probation officer as directed on more than one
occasion during this period. Per [minor’s] reports, he was provided individual therapy and
substance abuse counseling through the Wraparound program.”
Minor “participated once again in the Wraparound program while residing with his
adult sister as a Resource Family Applicant . . . from December 2, 2020, through
December 29, 2020, when he was closed out after he absconded.”
Minor “received substance abuse counseling while he was committed to . . .
YTEC[] from June 22, 2021, through December 5, 2021.” At YTEC, minor “received a
myriad of services, including Aggression Replacement Therapy . . . , Moral Reconation
Therapy . . . , substance abuse education, Youth Crossroads gang awareness, family
therapy, individual therapy, and Victim Awareness.”
7
Probation records also reflected that minor “and his mother were referred to the
California Mentor Program with substance abuse counseling on December 8, 2021,
following his release from YTEC; however, he ultimately refused to participate due to the
employment he had at the time, which he subsequently quit.”
A supervising probation officer told the reporting probation officer that minor had
“adjusted well to the rules and expectations while at [Indio Juvenile Hall (IJH)]. Although
he has been involved in a few altercations[,] overall [minor] has made tremendous strides
with regards to controlling his impulsive negative behavior. . . . [T]he individual that
[minor] has transformed into while at IJH . . . is a testament to the individual [minor]
could be while in the community.” “He has often been the voice of reason when his peers
do not see eye-to-eye. [Minor] has been the youth staff rely on to be a peer mentor for
first time detainees at IJH as well as detained youth with disabilities. [Minor] ensures they
are part of the group and can participate in daily programming. [Minor] can often be seen
in the unit sitting next to youth and giving them positive advice.”
The reporting probation officer opined that criminal “sophistication was inherent in
the elements of the offense, as it appears to have been planned, deliberate and for the
benefit of a criminal street gang.” Minor’s “involvement in the current offenses appears
to show a pattern of criminal behavior in which he continuously places himself in
situations that endanger himself and the community. At the time of [the] offense, [minor]
was on probation and was aware he had conditions that precluded him from associating
with known probationers or criminal street gang members and prohibited him from being
in possession of weapons of any kind and from associating with persons in possession of
8
weapons. Further, two of the minor’s three previously adjudicated matters were for
violent and serious offenses involving firearms, further showing [minor] was aware that
possessing a firearm could lead to him being arrested.”
Minor had “largely received the entirety of services the juvenile justice system has
to offer, and all have proven to be unsuccessful as he has continued to re-offend in
increasingly violent ways, culminating in the murder of another human being.” Minor’s
“demonstrative history, failure to cooperate or connect with community resources prior
and post release from YTEC, gang membership and gang entrenchment as well as
continuing to carry and use firearms post release from YTEC, are not indicators of an
individual to whom juvenile services would be appropriate.”
“Records show the only time [minor] has fully and successfully completed any
rehabilitative service has been while placed in a secure facility and even then, once he
completed the program and returned to the community, he failed to apply what he learned
to his day-to-day life in a sustained law-abiding manner. Further, since [minor] has been
in custody pending the instant matters, he has continued to engage in violent behaviors as
the aggressor in eight separate physical altercations.” The reporting probation officer
opined that minor should be transferred to a court of criminal jurisdiction.
On July 8-11, 15-16, 18, 23, and 31, 2024, the juvenile court held the transfer
hearing. Cathedral City Police officers testified that JT was a documented criminal street
gang in the City of Indio; BDH was a documented criminal street gang in Cathedral City;
the two gangs are rivals.
9
The People played a video recording of the shooting. An occupant of the vehicle
could be heard on the video saying, “Are you JT.” The victim responded, “Yeah, why?”
Officers identified minor from surveillance footage from the apartment, several
businesses, and cell phone records.
Minor was an active member of BDH with the gang moniker of “Lil Grande.”
Minor had BDH gang tattoos.6 One of the officers testified that the shooting would
benefit both BDH and minor as a member of BDH.
The probation officer who authored the transfer report testified that minor’s prior
history on probation was unsuccessful because “he accrued multiple violations of
probation, multiple warrants were issued on his behalf, and he received new petitions.”
Minor demonstrated “a high level of criminal sophistication.” This was based on the
homicide itself, minor’s “actions after the homicide [and] the lengths he went to . . . avoid
discovery. That during the offense [minor] conceal[ed] the firearm until the victim was
within a very close range, [and] contin[ued] to discharge the firearm after the victim began
to run away.”
“[M]ore than one shot indicates deliberation in one’s actions and a certain intent.”
“I believe . . . that it was like luring the victim over before ambushing him, . . . .” The fact
that a random person, rather than a specific person, was the object of the shooting
6 The People’s supplemental exhibit, reflected that despite the psychologists’ encouragement, minor’s eventual request, and the offer to provide such services, minor ultimately displayed “resistance” and then disinterest “in tattoo removal services.”
10
displayed an intent to harm anyone. The probation officer also noted that since minor’s
incarceration in IJH, he had been involved in eight fights in which he was the aggressor.
The probation officer noted that minor “had done the WRAP Around program on
two separate occasions, that included substance abuse and individual therapy. He
received a myriad of services at YTEC . . . .” “Upon his completion of YTEC he was
referred to the California Mentoring Program with substance abuse.” Minor “has not
demonstrated a wanting or willingness to complete any rehabilitative service outside of a
secure setting.”
“[W]hile [minor] completed the YTEC program, upon his return to the community
he did not put into practice any of the skills that he learned; he engaged in further criminal
activity.” “[T]here’s nothing in his history to indicate that that would be successful in his
rehabilitation.” “[H]is demonstrative history and his negative behavior since he’s been in
custody indicate that [rehabilitation is] not possible.” “[H]e’s not amenable to juvenile
services.”
Rehabilitation is “whether someone makes sustained positive changes, takes
advantage of services, and implements what they learned to be successful in their life.”
“[A]ll the services that have been offered to [minor] in the community, he has never
completed any. And while he did complete the YTEC program, upon his release he began
using illegal substances and he was arrested for the current matter.”
The reporting probation officer noted that despite all the services minor had
received, he escalated his criminal activity by committing a “violent offense for the
benefit of a criminal street gang . . . .” Thus, he opined that minor was suitable for
11
transfer to the criminal court. This was “based on the total involvement that [minor] had
in the offense, that he had previously been arrested for firearm related offenses, and
witnessed firearm violence in his life and still chose to engage in the homicide.” The
probation officer found additional support for his conclusion in the fact that minor was
nearly 18 years old when he committed the homicide and had only been released from
YTEC three months earlier.
Dr . Nelson testified that minor “expressed traumas . . . and—adverse childhood
experiences that occurred both inside of the home, as well as outside of the home.” “He
also reported that when he was a child[,] he witnessed his brother-in-law get stabbed. [¶]
He witnessed another—his sister’s boyfriend, I believe, get shot. [¶] He also said that he
witnessed his father stab someone, which led to his father being imprisoned . . . .” Minor
reported both his mother and he were victims of domestic violence by one of his mother’s
boyfriends. “[T]hese adverse childhood experiences opened the door to him starting to
engage in some delinquent behaviors.”
Dr. Nelson opined that minor was not criminally sophisticated. His behaviors
“involved him engaging in highly risky and reckless behaviors that indicated to me he
really didn’t plan or think things through when engaging in the behavior.” Minor’s
prognosis was “fair to relatively good” if he could be removed from the gang and desisted
in using intoxicants. Dr. Nelson opined that minor would likely make significant progress
if given five years of programs under the juvenile court’s jurisdiction “if he was really
engaged.”
12
A criminal mitigation expert who had spent over three hundred hours with minor in
IJH opined that minor would be successful in rehabilitation: “He’s taken what we’ve
taught him and he’s applied it, not only in his own life, but in the lives of other youth.”
The supervising probation officer in IJH for the previous 26 months during which
minor had been in the unit testified that the minor she “met when he first arrived at [IJH]
was a very different [minor] than the [current minor] . . . as far as his ability to make . . .
better decisions when it comes to controlling his temper or when he’s upset, how he
handles himself. Being able to vocalize his frustrations or asking for staff to put him in
his room, what we call self-placed confinement, so that he can have time alone.” Minor
“has demonstrated the ability to be a mature young man, which is . . . what we’re used to
seeing in the community . . . where . . . young men are respectful, mature, and have the
ability to communicate with words rather than . . . being aggressive.”
The unit had been fight-free for 173 days, which the officer attributed, in part, to
minor’s leadership. Minor had “been a peer mentor to some of the younger youth. And
he’s been a peer mentor to one . . . specific youth that stands out . . . who had learning
disabilities. So [minor] took it upon himself to be able to coach him and help him when it
was time for physical agility stuff. The kid was unable to do any of it, but yet [minor] was
the one that, without anyone asking him, he just took it upon himself to be his . . .
mentor.”
After the hearing, the court issued a written ruling finding that three of the five
requisite criteria supported transfer to the criminal court. The court found that minor was
criminally sophisticated, that previous attempts to rehabilitate minor had been
13
unsuccessful, and that the gravity of the instant offense “showed an extreme indifference
to human life.” Therefore, the court concluded minor was not amenable to treatment
within the juvenile court’s jurisdiction and transferred the matter to the criminal court.
II. DISCUSSION
Minor contends insufficient evidence supported the court’s finding by clear and
convincing evidence that minor should be transferred to a criminal court, that insufficient
evidence supports the court’s finding that defendant is unamenable to treatment during the
next five years, that the court relied on factors not supported by substantial evidence, that
the court ignored expert opinion proving minor is amenable to treatment, and that the
court’s ruling violates minor’s due process rights.7 Defendant asserts that the court erred
in failing to make the requisite “separate and specific finding of unamenability to
rehabilitation.” We disagree.
“Section 707 sets forth the procedures for transferring a minor from juvenile court
to criminal court. It provides that whenever a minor aged 16 years or older is alleged to
have committed a felony, the prosecutor may move ‘to transfer the minor from juvenile
court to a court of criminal jurisdiction.’ [Citation.] The prosecution bears the burden of
proving that the minor should be transferred. [Citation.]” (In re Miguel R. (2024) 100
Cal.App.5th 152, 164.)
7 Minor additionally maintains we should independently review the juvenile court’s handling of the People’s “discovery disclosure issues” contained in the sealed transcripts of in camera proceedings. The People agree. We have conducted an independent review of the sealed proceedings and find that no documents were incorrectly withheld from minor.
14
“‘[T]he juvenile court shall decide whether the minor should be transferred to a
court of criminal jurisdiction. In order to find that the minor should be transferred to a
court of criminal jurisdiction, the court shall find by clear and convincing evidence that
the minor is not amenable to rehabilitation while under the jurisdiction of the juvenile
court. . . . If the court orders a transfer of jurisdiction, the court shall recite the basis for
its decision in an order entered upon the minutes, which shall include the reasons
supporting the court’s finding that the minor is not amenable to rehabilitation while under
the jurisdiction of the juvenile court.’ [Citation.]” (Miguel R., supra, 100 Cal.App.5th at
p. 164, italics omitted.)
The court must consider five statutory criteria: “(1) ‘the degree of criminal
sophistication exhibited by the minor’ [citation],[8] (2) ‘[w]hether the minor can be
rehabilitated prior to the expiration of the juvenile court’s jurisdiction’ [citation],[9]
8 “With respect to the degree of criminal sophistication, . . . . mandatory factors for the court to consider[ include:] whether the minor has had any involvement in the child welfare or foster care system and whether the minor has been ‘a victim of human trafficking, sexual abuse, or sexual battery.’ [Citation.]” (Miguel R., supra, 100 Cal.App.5th at pp. 164-165; accord, § 707, subd. (a)(3)(A)(i) [“the juvenile court shall give weight to any relevant factor, including, but not limited to, the minor’s age, maturity, intellectual capacity, and physical, mental, and emotional health at the time of the alleged offense; the minor’s impetuosity or failure to appreciate risks and consequences of criminal behavior; the effect of familial, adult, or peer pressure on the minor’s actions; the effect of the minor’s family and community environment; the existence of childhood trauma; the minor’s involvement in the child welfare or foster care system; and the status of the minor as a victim of human trafficking, sexual abuse, or sexual battery on the minor’s criminal sophistication.”].)
9 “[T]he second criterion—‘[w]hether the minor can be rehabilitated prior to the expiration of the juvenile court’s jurisdiction’ [citation]—is distinct from the ultimate determination ‘that the minor is not amenable to rehabilitation while under the [footnote continued on next page]
attempts by the juvenile court to rehabilitate the minor’ [citation], and (5) ‘[t]he
circumstances and gravity of the offense alleged in the petition to have been committed by
the minor’ [citation].” (Miguel R., supra, 100 Cal.App.5th at p. 164; accord, In re J.S.
(2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 205, 212.) “[T]he statute does not require that any of those
criteria be afforded any greater weight than any other. [Citation.]” (Miguel R., at p. 167.)
“The juvenile court’s findings with respect to each of section 707’s five criteria are
findings of fact reviewed for substantial evidence. [Citation.] In conducting substantial
evidence review, we draw all reasonable inferences in support of the court’s findings.
[Citation.]” (Miguel R., supra, 100 Cal.App.5th at p. 165.)
“Likewise, we review for substantial evidence the juvenile court’s ultimate finding
‘that the minor is not amenable to rehabilitation while under the jurisdiction of the
juvenile court.’ [Citation.] Because the juvenile court must make that finding by clear
and convincing evidence, we ‘determine whether the record, viewed as a whole, contains
substantial evidence from which a reasonable trier of fact could have made the finding of
high probability demanded by’ the clear and convincing evidence standard. [Citation.]”
(Miguel R., supra, 100 Cal.App.5th at p. 165.)
A. Criminal Sophistication
The court recited at length the relevant evidence it had considered with respect to
its determination that defendant was criminally sophisticated. It found of particular
jurisdiction of the juvenile court’ [citation].” (Miguel R., supra, 100 Cal.App.5th at p. 167.)
16
relevance that minor was on juvenile wardship probation when he committed the instant
offense, that he had just met with his probation officer seven days before the shooting, that
he had just completed the YTEC program three months earlier, and that he knew he was
not permitted to be in possession of a firearm. The court noted that minor had been on
wardship probation since he was 15 years old and had been receiving a variety of
intensive services over the years.
It found that the shooting was “clearly gang related.” The court found minor’s
behavior of “repeatedly discharge[ing] a firearm, and the seeking out of a gang-rival, . . .
and not just shooting him one time, but shooting him at close range and then shooting him
three more times in rapid succession after he had clearly been wounded, signals a higher
degree of criminal sophistication to the court.” The court noted that minor was only three
months shy of being 18 years of age when he committed the offense.
The court concluded, “After considering all of the above, (despite the Minor’s
traumatic history), the whole picture, the court feels significant facts include, Minor’s age
being very close to the age of majority, the egregious facts of the offense, Minor’s
previous history with firearms, the fact that Minor was armed with a firearm, when he was
prohibited from possessing a firearm because he was on wardship probation for a firearm
offense with enhanced supervision, and that he shot [the] victim . . . multiple times at
close range after he had already been wounded once, the offense was clearly gang-related
and showed an extreme callousness and indifference to human life, and considering . . .
Minor’s evasive behaviors after the incident to actively evade law enforcement and ‘brag’
about it on social media, and still make statements on social media in support of his gang
17
all demonstrate to the court that he possessed criminal sophistication.” The court’s
exposition itself demonstrates substantial evidence supporting its ruling.
The evidence adduced at the hearing unequivocally supported the following facts
cited by the court to support its determination that minor was criminally sophisticated:
minor was on probation when he committed the instant offense; he had met with his
probation officer seven days before the shooting; he had just graduated from YTEC
approximately three months before the homicide; minor had been informed that he was
forbidden from possessing a firearm as a term of his probation; he had been on probation
since he was 15 years old; and minor had received a plethora of services since the juvenile
court first placed him on probation. The juvenile court had previously found true
allegations that minor had committed crimes while personally armed with a gun.
The evidence supported the court’s conclusion that the shooting was “clearly gang
related.” The People not only adduced police reports and officer testimony regarding the
shooting, but they also produced a video with sound recording of the actual shooting. The
video, along with other evidence, reflected that one of the vehicle’s occupants asked a
random person, “Are you JT.” The victim responded, “Yeah, why?”
Minor was an active member of BDH with gang tattoos and the gang moniker of
“Lil Grande.” JT was a known rival of BDH. One of the officers testified that the
shooting would benefit both BDH and minor as a member.
Minor shot one round at the victim from inside the car. He then exited the vehicle
as the victim ran away and fired an additional three rounds at the victim. The victim was
struck multiple times and killed. Minor then reentered the vehicle in which he fled.
18
Minor thereafter posted on social media that he knew officers were looking for him
and “joked about keeping away from the police.” Thus, the facts supported the court’s
determination that the shooting was gang related, “egregious,” and “showed an extreme
callousness and indifference to human life.” Likewise, minor’s behavior is substantial
evidence supporting the court’s finding that defendant was criminally sophisticated.
Minor’s counsel argues that minor’s “childhood trauma and substance abuse should
have been given greater weight as mitigating factors.” Minor’s counsel complains that
minor’s “intellectual disabilities and experiences of bullying in school exacerbated his
difficulties.” Minor makes many similar arguments about various aspects of the record
that he contends the court incorrectly interpreted or to which the court accorded inaccurate
weight.10
However, “it is the exclusive province of the trial judge . . . to determine the
credibility of witnesses and the weight to be afforded any evidence [citations].” (People v.
Tice (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 246, 256.) “Under a substantial evidence review, however,
we do not reweigh the evidence. [Citation.]” (People v. Werntz (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th
1093, 1117, fn. 9.) We will not reweigh or reevaluate the juvenile court’s determinations
on these matters so long as substantial evidence supports the court’s findings.
10 For instance, minor complains that his involvement and association with BDH “does not necessarily indicate criminal sophistication”; that “the court’s emphasis on [minor’s] actions during the offense . . . does not conclusively establish criminal sophistication”; and “the court’s consideration of [minor’s] ability to avoid detection and arrest for several months, along with his social media posts about avoiding law enforcement, does not prove criminal sophistication.”
19
Moreover, the court recited the evidence of minor’s childhood trauma and drug use.
The court expressly acknowledged minor’s trauma in its ruling: “There is no
downplaying the violence that Minor witnessed as a child: stabbings and homicides and it
is documented that his family was placed into protective custody due to their involvement
in this community violence.” “[I]t is undeniable that Minor has suffered trauma in his
early childhood, . . .”
Thus, the court expressly considered minor’s trauma. The court simply found that
minor’s criminal behavior outweighed any mitigating value it should accord his past
trauma. The court’s determination that minor was criminally sophisticated was supported
by substantial evidence.
B. Success of Previous Attempts at Rehabilitation11
The court found that minor had “been afforded a multitude of rehabilitative
services . . . during his lengthy involvement in the juvenile system.” “However, despite
the abundance of supportive services during . . . Minor’s time of probation, upon release
from YTEC, Minor re-offended within three months . . . and did not demonstrate that he
was putting into practice any of the skills he had obtained as there was a significant
escalation in violence, firearm use, negative peer/gang association and substance usage.”
The court concluded this factor supported minor’s transfer to criminal court.
11 We do not address the two factors that the court found did not support transfer to the criminal court since minor does not challenge them.
20
Substantial evidence supported the court’s finding. Minor had received probation
services, which included two opportunities in the Wraparound Program and placements
with a resource family, in a facility, and in YTEC.
Minor “participated in the Wraparound Program with his mother from January 24,
2020, through June 3, 2020, when the family was closed out due to lack of participation.”
“[T]he family regularly no showed to both family and individual meetings with their
Wraparound team. The minor also failed to meet with his assigned probation officer as
directed on more than one occasion during this period. Per [minor’s] reports, he was
provided individual therapy and substance abuse counseling through the Wraparound
program.”
Minor “participated once again in the Wraparound program . . . from December 2,
2020, through December 29, 2020, when he was closed out after he absconded.”
Minor “received substance abuse counseling while he was committed to . . .
YTEC[] from June 22, 2021, through December 5, 2021.” At YTEC, minor “received a
myriad of services, including Aggression Replacement Therapy (ART), Moral Reconation
Therapy (MRT), substance abuse education, Youth Crossroads gang awareness, family
therapy, individual therapy, and Victim Awareness (VA).”
Minor “and his mother were referred to the California Mentor Program with
substance abuse counseling on December 8, 2021, following his release from YTEC;
however, he ultimately refused to participate due to the employment he had at the time,
which he subsequently quit.” Dr. Jones noted these “interventions were well considered
. . . .” As the reporting probation officer concluded, minor had “largely received the
21
entirety of services the juvenile justice system has to offer, and all have proven to be
unsuccessful as he has continued to re-offend in increasingly violent ways, culminating in
the murder of another human being.”
After all the services provided to minor, three months after being released from
YTEC, while still on probation, minor obtained a firearm and killed a random person
without any apparent provocation or reason other than to boost his and his gang’s
reputation. Minor was so intoxicated when he was arrested, that officers took him to the
hospital. Substantial evidence supports the court’s finding that previous attempts at
rehabilitation had been unsuccessful, and that this criterion supported minor’s transfer to
the criminal court.
C. Circumstances and Gravity of the Offense
The court noted that when minor committed the instant offense, he “was already on
probation for serious offenses (robberies with gun enhancements) and not allowed to
possess a firearm. Minor . . . fled the scene, leaving the victim gravely injured and to die
shortly thereafter.”
The court found that minor “continued to shoot the victim multiple times after [the]
victim . . . was already shot one time (and attempting to flee from Minor) and already
crying out in pain.” “The killing of [the] victim . . . was callous and showed an extreme
indifference to human life when Minor continued to fire multiple shots after he had
already wounded him.” The court found this factor supported transfer to the criminal
court.
22
The court’s finding was supported by substantial evidence. Minor had previously
obtained a handgun in violation of the terms of his probation. Minor approached a
random individual. Minor then shot one round at the victim through the vehicle’s
window. He then exited the vehicle as the victim ran away and fired an additional three
rounds at the victim. The victim was struck multiple times and killed. Minor then
reentered the vehicle, in which he fled. Minor thereafter posted on social media that he
knew officers were looking for him and “joked about keeping away from the police.”
As the reporting probation officer noted, minor effectively participated in luring an
unsuspecting, random individual into an ambush, which resulted in his death, for no
apparent reason other than to bolster minor’s and minor’s gang’s reputation. Substantial
evidence supported the court’s determination that the gravity of the offense weighed
against minor because it was “callous and showed an extreme indifference to human life.”
Thus, the court’s finding that this criterion supported transfer to the criminal court was
supported by sufficient evidence.
Moreover, the court noted that it had considered minor’s “significant early
childhood traumas and does not diminish the substantial suffering he endured (witnessing
countless acts of violence including his father stab multiple persons [sic] and witnessing at
least two others killed) when he was a very young child . . . on balance, the court does not
find that it mitigates the gravity of the offense.” “The court has weighed the mandatory
factors and considered Minor’s mental and emotional development because of his (early
childhood) and traumatic upbringing, however, the court finds Minor clearly understood
the wrongfulness of his actions . . . .” “The court does not find sufficient facts or evidence
23
that could mitigate the gravity of the offense.” Thus, again, the court properly considered
the mitigating factors but determined that the gravity of minor’s offense outweighed any
influence the court should give the mitigating factors.
D. Totality of Evidence
Prior to the hearing, the court indicated it had read the petition, the motion to
transfer, the probation officer’s report, the psychologists’ reports, and the parties’ briefs.
In its written ruling on the transfer motion, the court accurately recited the applicable law.
The court noted that it considered all the documentary evidence, the exhibits, the
witnesses’ testimony, and counsels’ arguments presented during the hearing. The court
issued a written finding on each of the five requisite criteria in ruling on a motion to
transfer. The court expounded on the law and facts adduced at the hearing on each of
those criteria.
When making its final determination, the court noted, “The focus now is on
Minor’s amenability to rehabilitation. The court’s decision is based on an evaluation of
all the criteria and factors and based on all evidence presented. In this matter, the
evidence has shown that Minor is not amenable to treatment and rehabilitation while
under the juvenile court jurisdiction . . . . The court is making this finding by clear and
convincing evidence. The court agrees with the Probation Officer’s ultimate
recommendation that the Minor is not appropriate to remain under the jurisdiction of the
juvenile court.”
“The court has considered the mandatory factors in each of the five transfer criteria.
The court has applied the burden of proof of clear and convincing evidence, and the court
24
has considered whether the Minor is amenable to the treatment and services and likely to
be rehabilitated. Although the court found that Petitioner has not sustained its burden on
Factor Two and Factor Three, based upon all the evidence presented, the court ultimately
finds that Minor is not amenable to treatment and the services through the juvenile court.”
“After considering all the evidence admitted during the lengthy hearing, the court
concludes that Minor is not amenable to treatment within the juvenile court’s jurisdiction,
considering the significant weight the court is giving to the factors where the court has
concluded that transfer is appropriate.” Minor’s “demonstrated entrenchment in his gang,
even upon completion of a secured youth treatment program (three months before the
homicide) and four years of intensive juvenile court services could not deter his
underlying conduct and affect the court’s consideration of his ultimate amenability to
services within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court.” Minor “was guarded about his role
and his future with the gang; there was an ambivalence to disconnect[ing] with the gang
. . . .”
Minor refused “to follow through with tattoo removal services upon his release
from YTEC and then his immediate return to his negative peers (including high ranking
BDH gang members) while being on the most intensive probation supervision (enhanced
aftercare), when he was close to the age of majority—three months shy of 18, leads the
court to the inevitable conclusion that he [is] not amenable to services under juvenile court
jurisdiction since the concept of rehabilitation encompasses conduct in the community as
well as that in a secured setting. The probation department and the juvenile court have
afforded the Minor a multitude of intensive services to address treatment in the
25
community and in a secured setting for a period of four years. Despite the resources and
while being intensely supervised, the Minor committed the most serious and violent
offense, a homicide, that resulted in the loss of life of an unarmed person walking down a
residential street. The court has gone beyond the circumstances surrounding the offense
itself and is considering the rehabilitative services the Minor has already been afforded,
the highest level of supervision, the fact that he has not taken advantage of previous offers
of tattoo removal, the ambivalence to disengage from his gang in the future, the
circumstances and gravity of the current offense are a factor, his continued access to and
use of firearms, all lead the court to the conclusion that he is unamenable to treatment
within the juvenile court’s jurisdiction.”
Thus, the court demonstrably made a “separate and specific finding of
unamenability to rehabilitation.” Further, as the court noted, minor did display
“resistance” and then disinterest in tattoo removal services. As discussed ante, all the
remaining factors considered by the court in ultimately concluding that defendant was
unamenable to rehabilitation under the juvenile court’s jurisdiction were supported by
substantial evidence. The court’s order transferring minor was, therefore, likewise,
supported by substantial evidence.
26
Again, the court recognized that it was “undeniable that Minor has suffered trauma
in his early childhood . . . .” The court also noted that minor’s “conduct tends to be good
in a secured setting . . . [and] he has shown significant improvement over the last year by
all accounts . . . .” Nonetheless, the court exercised its discretion in determining that the
aggravating factors outweighed the mitigating factors. The court’s determinations were
supported by substantial evidence.
III. DISPOSITION
We affirm the juvenile court’s order granting the People’s motion to transfer the
matter to a court of criminal jurisdiction.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
McKINSTER Acting P. J.
We concur:
FIELDS J.
RAPHAEL J.
27
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The juvenile court did not err in transferring the minor to criminal court, as substantial evidence supported the finding that the minor was not amenable to rehabilitation within the juvenile justice system.
Issues
Whether sufficient evidence supports the juvenile court's order transferring the minor to criminal court.
Whether the juvenile court erred in its finding that the minor is not amenable to rehabilitation under the juvenile court's jurisdiction.
Whether the juvenile court failed to make the requisite specific finding of unamenability to rehabilitation.
Disposition. Affirmed.
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“The juvenile court’s findings with respect to each of section 707’s five criteria are findings of fact reviewed for substantial evidence.”