In re F.L. CA5
Filed 3/9/23 In re F.L. CA5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
In re F.L., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
THE PEOPLE, F084301
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 21JL-00057B)
v. OPINION F.L.,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Merced County. Mark V. Bacciarini, Judge. Kendall Dawson Wasley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Christopher J. Rench, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-
SEE CONCURRING OPINION
INTRODUCTION F.L. (appellant) appeals from the juvenile court’s order granting the People’s motion to transfer appellant from juvenile court to criminal court pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 707, subdivision (a).1 While this appeal was pending, the Legislature enacted Assembly Bill No. 2361 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.) (Stats. 2022, ch. 330, § 1), which increased the standard of proof necessary to support transfer to “clear and convincing evidence.” (§ 707, subd. (a)(3).) The parties agree, as do we, that the change in law applies retroactively to appellant. Because the burden of proof has been increased for transfer motions, we reverse the juvenile court’s order granting transfer and remand the matter to the juvenile court to conduct a new transfer hearing applying the law as amended by Assembly Bill No. 2361. BACKGROUND The Merced County District Attorney’s Office filed a juvenile wardship petition alleging appellant committed the following offenses: Assault with a firearm (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(2); count 1), with an enhancement for acting for the benefit of or in association with a criminal street gang (Pen. Code, § 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(A)); criminal threats (Pen. Code, § 422; count 2); participating in a criminal street gang (Pen. Code, § 186.22, subd. (a); count 3); carrying a loaded firearm while an active participant in a criminal street gang (Pen. Code, § 25850, subds. (a), (c)(3); count 4); and misdemeanor carrying a loaded firearm (Pen. Code, § 25850, subd. (a); count 5).2 Prior to the transfer hearing, the juvenile court granted the People’s motion to dismiss count 2. The People moved to transfer appellant to criminal court. After considering the report of the probation officer and conducting a transfer hearing, the juvenile court
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)