In re B.B. CA2/6

Filed 7/19/22 In re B.B. CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

In re B.B., a Person Coming 2d Juv. No. B318429 Under the Juvenile Court Law. (Super. Ct. No. 21JV-00064) (San Luis Obispo County)

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

B.B.,

Defendant and Appellant.

In May 2021, respondent filed a juvenile wardship petition alleging that appellant B.B. committed several criminal sex acts in 2017, when he was 15 years old. The juvenile court granted respondent’s motion to transfer the matter to a court of criminal jurisdiction. Appellant contends the juvenile court erred because a 2019 amendment to Welfare & Institutions Code, section 707 eliminated the district attorney’s authority to request transfer of

14-year-olds and 15-year-olds from juvenile court to criminal court, except where the minor is “not apprehended prior to the end of juvenile court jurisdiction.” (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 707, subd. (a)(2).)1 Respondent correctly concedes the error. As a consequence, we reverse the order dated February 7, 2022 and remand the matter to the juvenile court for further proceedings. Facts and Procedural History In May 2021, a juvenile wardship petition was filed alleging that B.B. committed sexual offenses (Pen. Code §§ 289, subd. (a)(1)(B), 288a(c)(2)(B), 286, subd. (c)(2)(B), 288.5, subd. (a)), against a victim who was under the age of 14. The offenses allegedly occurred when B.B. was 15 years old. He was 19 years old when the petition was filed. The People filed a motion to transfer appellant from the juvenile court to a court of criminal jurisdiction under section 707, subdivision (a)(2). B.B. opposed the motion on the ground, among others, that section 707, subdivision (a)(2) no longer permitted the district attorney to request a transfer where the juvenile was 15 years old at the time of the alleged offenses and was “apprehended prior to the end of juvenile court jurisdiction.” (Ibid.) The juvenile court concluded appellant was subject to transfer because he was an adult when the petition was filed. It further found that appellant was not amenable to rehabilitation in juvenile court and granted the motion to transfer the case to a court of criminal jurisdiction. After appellant filed his notice of appeal, the juvenile court granted his motion to stay the transfer order.