People v. J.R. CA5

Filed 4/27/23 P. v. J.R. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THE PEOPLE, F084654 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 17JL-00137C) v.

J.R., OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Merced County. Jennifer O. Trimble, Judge. Karriem Baker, 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, Kimberley A. Donohue and Craig S. Meyers, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Levy, Acting P. J., Smith, J. and Snauffer, J.

INTRODUCTION In 2019, a juvenile wardship petition was filed alleging that appellant J.R., a minor at the time, had committed various felonies, including a gang-related murder. In 2021, an amended petition was filed. It was alleged that appellant had participated in this gang- related murder, and a principal had personally and intentionally discharged a firearm that caused the victim’s death. In July 2022, the district attorney successfully moved the juvenile court to transfer appellant to the superior court to be tried as an adult. The juvenile court granted the transfer based on a preponderance of the evidence standard. In the present appeal, respondent concedes that the order must be reversed. We agree. Effective January 1, 2023, the Legislature enacted Assembly Bill No. 2361 (2021- 2022 Reg. Sess.) (Stats. 2022, ch. 330, § 1). This law retroactively requires the transfer of a minor from juvenile court to a criminal court to be based on “clear and convincing evidence that the minor is not amenable to rehabilitation while under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court.” (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 707, subd. (a)(3).) 1 Consequently, we reverse the juvenile court’s order and remand for a new fitness hearing.2 BACKGROUND We briefly summarize the alleged facts surrounding this murder. We also summarize the juvenile court’s ruling.

1 All future statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise noted. 2 We need not address appellant’s other claim that the juvenile court allegedly abused its discretion because its findings lacked sufficient evidence. In light of the change in law, a new record must be developed with different findings based on a higher standard of proof. (§ 707, subd. (a)(3); see also In re S.S. (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 1277, 1281 [declining to address an insufficiency of evidence claim due to the need to remand for further proceedings in light of Assembly Bill No. 2361].)