People v. Martin CA3

Filed 10/13/20 P. v. Martin CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

THE PEOPLE, C087957

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. Nos. 16FE020288 & 17FE011228) v.

TAZZAHAY QUAZZETT MARTIN,

Defendant and Appellant.

After the juvenile court transferred defendant Tazzahay Quazzett Martin’s case from juvenile court to criminal court, a jury found him guilty of attempted robbery and burglary. The trial court subsequently sentenced him to serve four years in state prison. On appeal, defendant argues the trial court should have held a second transfer hearing after trial, to determine whether he should be sentenced as an adult or a juvenile. Defendant also argues the court erred in imposing fines and fees without an ability to pay hearing. We reject defendant’s arguments and affirm the judgment.

1

BACKGROUND Defendant was 17 years old when he committed the offenses. Initially, the People filed a Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 wardship petition, alleging defendant committed an attempted robbery.1 The People further alleged defendant personally used a firearm during the commission of his crime. The People petitioned the juvenile court to transfer defendant’s case to criminal court pursuant to section 707, subdivision (a)(1). The probation department (department) evaluated defendant based on the factors listed in section 707, subdivision (a)(3)(A) through (E). The department recommended defendant be transferred to criminal court based on the criminal sophistication of his crime (§ 707, subd. (a)(3)(A)) and the gravity of the offense (§ 707, subd. (a)(3)(E)). The department also found defendant had the ability to grow and mature (§ 707, subd. (a)(3)(B)) and had no prior record (§ 707, subd. (a)(3)(C) & (D)). The department found these criteria weighed in favor of leaving defendant in the juvenile justice system. The juvenile court granted the People’s motion.2 In reaching its decision, the juvenile court considered the People’s transfer petition, defendant’s opposition, the report and recommendation from the department, “other relevant evidence,” and arguments of counsel. In its minute order, the juvenile court indicated it considered all five factors listed in section 707 in reaching its decision: (1) defendant’s degree of criminal sophistication; (2) whether defendant can be rehabilitated prior to the expiration of the juvenile court’s jurisdiction; (3) defendant’s previous delinquent history; (4) the results of previous attempts by the court to rehabilitate defendant; and (5) the circumstances and