In re Meraz CA4/1

California Court of Appeal Mar 4, 2026 No. D085517Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court granted a petition for habeas corpus, holding that the petitioner received ineffective assistance of counsel when his attorney failed to raise the retroactive application of Proposition 57 during his nonfinal direct appeal. The matter was remanded to the juvenile court for a transfer hearing to determine whether the petitioner should have been tried as a juvenile.

Issues

Whether the petitioner was entitled to a juvenile transfer hearing under Proposition 57.
Whether the petitioner received ineffective assistance of counsel due to his attorney's failure to raise the applicability of Proposition 57 during his direct appeal.

Disposition. remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Accordingly, we grant relief, remand for the criminal court to conditionally reverse its sentence, and remand the matter to the juvenile court for proceedings under Welfare and Institutions Code section 707.”

“Meraz’s counsel’s declaration stating she had no tactical reason for failing to raise the matter on direct appeal demonstrates constitutional ineffective assistance of counsel”

Filed 3/4/26 In re Meraz CA4/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

In re RAFAEL MERAZ D085517

on (San Diego County Super. Ct. No. SCD233469) Habeas Corpus.

PROCEEDINGS in habeas corpus. Joan P. Weber, Judge. Relief granted with directions.

Nancy K. King, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Petitioner. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Arlene A. Sevidal, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Eric A. Swenson, Supervising Deputy Attorney General and Felicity Senoski, Deputy Attorney General, for Respondent.

Rafael Meraz, who was 15 years old in 2007 when he committed a murder, contests a criminal court’s order denying his petition for

resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6.1 Meraz contends that while his direct appeal was pending in this court, “California voters passed Proposition 57 on November 8, 2016. This amendment to the Welfare and Institutions Code eliminated direct filing in criminal court by prosecutors, allowing for young defendants like [him] to be tried as an adult only after a finding of unfitness in juvenile court. The law took effect on November 9, 2016, and because his case was not final at that time, the provisions of Proposition 57 applied to [him] and he should have been remanded to juvenile court for a fitness hearing at that time.” He argues that prior to the finalization of his judgment, he was constitutionally deprived of the effective assistance of counsel, who did not raise this issue in 2016. In Meraz’s attorney’s declaration accompanying the writ petition, she states: “When Proposition 57 was passed and became effective the following week, I was not aware of its application to this case, and I did not file any additional briefing or ask for remand to the juvenile court.” She also points out she represented Meraz in a second appeal but did not raise the issue. She concludes: “If I had been aware that Proposition 57 had a possible ameliorative effect that retroactively applied to petitioner’s case, I would have filed a supplemental brief and/or a petition for rehearing in late 2016, and if the case had not been remanded at that time I would have filed a

In re Meraz CA4/1

AI Brief

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

IRION, J.

KELETY, J.

AI Brief