People v. Blay CA1/5

Filed 5/16/23 P. v. Blay CA1/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A166315 v. DEANDRE MAURICE BLAY, (Marin County Defendant and Appellant. Super. Ct. No. JV-26919A)

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 After a jury found Deandre Maurice Blay guilty of first degree murder, preventing a victim from testifying, and conspiracy (Pen. Code, §§ 187, 189, subd. (a), 136.1, 182), with true findings on special circumstance allegations (Pen. Code, § 190.2, subd. (a)(10) [killing to prevent testimony], (15) [by lying in wait]) and myriad sentence enhancement allegations, the Marin Superior Court sentenced him to 25 years to life in prison with the possibility of parole. (People v. Blay (Sept. 16, 2019, A138380) [nonpub. opn.], mod. Oct. 15, 2019, pp. 2, 137–138, 139.)2

Cal. Stds. Jud. Admin., § 8.1; Ct. App., First Dist., Local Rules of Ct., 1

rule 19. We cite this court’s prior opinion only for background. (Cal. Rules of 2

Court, rule 8.1115(a), (b); The Utility Reform Network v. Public Utilities Com. (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 945, 951, fn. 3.)

1

Though Blay was 17 years old when he committed these crimes, the People charged him in criminal court in 2009 under former Welfare and Institutions Code section 707, subdivision (d)(1). (See Stats. 2008, ch. 179, § 236, pp. 903, 905–906, 907, eff. Jan. 1, 2009.) While his prior appeal was pending, voters passed “The Public Safety and Rehabilitation Act of 2016” (Off. Voter Information Guide, Gen. Elec. (Nov. 8, 2016), text of Prop. 57, § 1, p. 141), amending former Welfare and Institutions Code sections 602 and 707 to require the People to charge a minor in juvenile court unless the juvenile court determines after a transfer hearing that the minor should be tried and sentenced as an adult (Off. Voter Information Guide, supra, text of Prop. 57, §§ 4.1–4.2, pp. 141–145). (See People v. Superior Court (Lara) (2018) 4 Cal.5th 299, 303, 305–307 [background], 303–304 [act applies retroactively]; accord, People v. Padilla (2022) 13 Cal.5th 152, 167.) In disposing of Blay’s prior appeal, this court remanded the matter to the Marin Juvenile Court to conduct such a transfer hearing (People v. Blay, supra, A138380, at pp. 138– 139, 140–141), which it did. After six days of testimony from 11 witnesses, including Blay and four experts, and after both written and oral closing arguments, the court issued a thorough 26-page decision in September 2022 on what it described as a “close call,” concluding: “The People have met their burden under California Rule of Court 5.7770(a) [sic] and established that [there should be a] transfer of jurisdiction to criminal court jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence.” Blay appeals that decision, not because of any alleged error but arguing the 2022 amendment to Welfare and Institutions Code section 707 entitles him to a new juvenile transfer hearing. The People agree he is entitled to a new hearing, and so do we. We independently review statutory interpretation and application. (People v. Childs (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 1079, 1101.)