In re Jesus C. CA4/1

Filed 11/30/22 In re Jesus C. CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 Jesus C., a Person Coming Under D080483 the Juvenile Court Law. ____________________________________

THE PEOPLE, (Super. Ct. No. J241436)

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

JESUS C.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Robert J. Trentacosta, Judge. Conditionally reversed with directions. Mi Kim, under appointment by Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney General, Robin Urbanski and Laura Baggett, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Jesus C. appeals the juvenile court’s order granting the People’s request to transfer him from juvenile court to the court of criminal jurisdiction, following a transfer hearing pursuant to Welfare and

Institutions Code1 section 707. Following the transfer hearing, the juvenile court issued a written decision finding that the People sustained their burden of showing “by a preponderance of the evidence” that Jesus C. should be transferred to a court of criminal jurisdiction. Effective January 1, 2023, Assembly Bill No. 2361 (Assem. Bill No.2361) will amend section 707 to require a juvenile court transferring a minor to adult court to apply the higher standard of proof of clear and convincing evidence to the ultimate finding that the minor is not amenable to rehabilitation while under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court. Additionally, the new law requires the juvenile court to state in an order the reasons supporting the court’s finding that the minor is not amenable to rehabilitation while under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court. Jesus C. and the People agree that the amendments to section 707 will apply retroactively to Jesus C. under In re Estrada (1965) 63 Cal.2d 740 (Estrada) and People v. Superior Court (Lara) (2018) 4 Cal.5th 299. Jesus C. argues the proper remedy is to vacate the transfer order and enter a new order denying transfer under Assem. Bill No. 2361, and because substantial evidence does not support a finding that Jesus C. is not amenable to rehabilitation while under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court, even under the lower preponderance of the evidence standard. The People argue the proper remedy is to conditionally reverse the transfer order and remand the