In re C.C. CA1/5

Filed 9/29/23 In re C.C. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

In re C.C., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, A166068 Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Humboldt County C.C, Super Ct. No. JV190058) Defendant and Appellant.

C.C. appeals from an order transferring him from juvenile court to the adult criminal court pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code former section 707.1 (Sen. Bill No. 1391 (2017- 2018 Reg. Sess.), Stats. 2018, ch. 1012, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 2019.) He contends reversal is required under In re Estrada (1965) 63 Cal.2d 740 (Estrada) for the juvenile court to reconsider its ruling in light of recent changes to section 707 enacted by Assembly Bill No. 2361 ((2021-2022 Reg. Sess.), Stats. 2022, ch. 330, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 2023). The People concede the amendments to section 707 apply retroactively, but they contend remand is unwarranted because C.C. was not prejudiced by the court’s application of the then-current law. We reverse and remand for the juvenile court to reconsider the transfer motion under the amended statute.

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and

Institutions Code.

1

BACKGROUND

C.C. allegedly committed three forcible rapes and related sexual offenses between the ages of 15 and 17.

The People filed a wardship petition alleging three counts of forcible rape, one count of forcible oral copulation on a minor 14 years of age or older, and one count of sexual battery by restraint. They then moved to transfer the case to adult court.

At the conclusion of the transfer hearing the court found that most, but not all, of the five factors set forth in section 707, subdivisions (a)(3)(A)-(E) favored transfer. It found the first and second factors, the degree of C.C.’s criminal sophistication and whether he could be rehabilitated while under juvenile court jurisdiction, favored transfer. The third and fourth factors, C.C.’s previous delinquent history and his success on previous rehabilitation attempts were a “mixed bag” in that he successfully completed his diversion program but continued to offend. The fifth factor, the circumstances and gravity of the alleged offenses, weighed in favor of transfer. Based on its assessment of these factors, the court found by a preponderance of the evidence that C.C. should be transferred to adult criminal court.