In re Q.S. CA3

California Court of Appeal Sep 12, 2022 No. C095594Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear an appeal of a juvenile transfer order issued prior to the January 1, 2022, effective date of Welfare and Institutions Code section 801, subdivision (a).

Issues

Whether an order transferring a minor to adult criminal court issued before January 1, 2022, is appealable.

Disposition. dismissed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The instant order was entered on November 15, 2021. Thus, we are without jurisdiction to hear this appeal and must dismiss it.”

“For transfer orders such as this one, issued prior to January 1, 2022, the exclusive remedy to challenge that order is by petition for an extraordinary writ.”

Filed 9/12/22 In re Q.S. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (San Joaquin) ----

In re Q.S., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court C095594 Law.

THE PEOPLE, (Super. Ct. No. JJCJVDE20160001919) Plaintiff and Respondent,

Q.S.,

Defendant and Appellant.

The San Joaquin District Attorney’s office filed a wardship petition against the minor Q.S. alleging in October and November of 2020 he committed a string of robberies, a carjacking, and a murder. The juvenile court granted the District Attorney’s motion to transfer the case to adult criminal court. Appointed counsel for defendant filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and asking this court to review the

record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436); defendant did not file a supplemental brief. In his opening brief, counsel for defendant noted that “there may be a question as to the appealability of the matter being appealed.” Indeed, the order at issue here is not appealable, as we next explain. We shall dismiss the appeal. BACKGROUND The wardship petition charged defendant with five robberies (counts 1, 6, 8, 10, 11), attempted robbery (count 2), carjacking (count 4), murder (count 12) with a special circumstance allegation the murder occurred in the course of a robbery (count 12), and five counts of felon in possession of a firearm (counts 3, 5, 7, 9, 13). (Pen. Code, §§ 211, 664, 211, 215, subd. (a), 187, subd. (a), 190.2, subd. (a)(17), 29800, subd. (a)(1).) 1 The petition alleged enhancements for personal use of a firearm (counts 1, 2, 6, 8, 10) and intentional and personal discharge of a firearm causing great bodily injury or death (counts 4, 11, 12). (§ 12022.53, subds. (b), (d).) The District Attorney requested a hearing for the juvenile court to consider transferring the matter to adult court. The probation department supported the motion. The juvenile court held an evidentiary hearing and orally pronounced its ruling finding each of the five factors in Welfare and Institutions Code section 707, subdivision (a)(2), favored transfer to adult criminal court. The court found: (1) the minor was 17 years nine months old at the time of his crime spree and the premeditated robberies, the carjacking and the murder demonstrated his criminal sophistication; (2) there was insufficient time for the juvenile court to attempt to rehabilitate the minor before its jurisdiction over the minor expired; (3) the minor had an extensive delinquent history; (4) the minor had been terminated from three different programs designed for his

In re Q.S. CA3

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief