NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. No. VCF337868)
OPINION
THE COURT APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Tulare County. Gary L. Paden, Judge. Tim Ward, District Attorney of Tulare County, and Adam Clare, Deputy District Attorney, for Plaintiff and Appellant. Elizabeth Campbell, under appointment by the Count of Appeal, for Defendant and Respondent.
Before Detjen, Acting P.J., Peña, J. and Snauffer, J.
-ooOoo-
Defendant Andres Martinez was directly indicted as an adult for murder, with firearm and gang allegations. He was 15 years old at the time of the charged offense. On January 1, 2019, Senate Bill No. 1391 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.) (Senate Bill 1391) became effective, prohibiting the prosecution of minors under the age of 16 in adult criminal court. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 707, subd. (a)(1)-(2), as amended by Stats. 2018, ch. 1012, § 1.) Pursuant to Senate Bill 1391, the trial court dismissed the adult criminal action and transferred the matter to the juvenile court. The People appeal, arguing that Senate Bill 1391 is unconstitutional. We affirm.
All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise stated.
PROCEDURAL SUMMARY
On July 13, 2016, defendant was indicted by a Tulare County Grand Jury on the charge of murder of Sergio Rodriguez (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a); count 1) on November 18, 2007. The indictment further alleged that defendant committed the offense for the benefit of a criminal street gang (Pen. Code, § 186.22, subd. (b)) and personally and intentionally discharged a firearm causing great bodily injury and death (Pen. Code, § 12022.53, subd. (d)). The indictment further alleged that defendant's date of birth was April 5, 1992.
On November 6, 2016, California voters enacted Proposition 57, eliminating "a district attorney's ability to 'direct file' charges in criminal court against minors who were 14 years of age or older at the time of their alleged crimes. Instead, ... require[ing] a district attorney to obtain juvenile court approval before prosecuting minors in criminal court." (People v. Superior Court (Alexander C.) (2019) 34 Cal.App.5th 994, 997; see § 707, former subd. (d)(2).)
In response to the enactment of Proposition 57, the prosecutor filed a juvenile petition (§ 707, former subd. (a)(1), as amended by Prop. 57, § 4.2) alleging the same charge and special allegations against defendant. The adult criminal charges against defendant were suspended. The prosecutor then sought to transfer jurisdiction over the matter to adult criminal court. On September 19, 2018, the court held a transfer of jurisdiction hearing, finding "that the matter should be transferred to the adult court for criminal prosecution."
Effective January 1, 2019, Senate Bill 1391 "eliminate[d] the district attorneys' ability to seek transfer of 14 and 15 year olds from juvenile court to criminal court, save for a narrow exception if the minor is 'not apprehended prior to the end of juvenile court jurisdiction.' " (People v. Superior Court (Alexander C.), supra, 34 Cal.App.5th at p. 998, quoting § 707, subd. (a)(2), as amended by Stats. 2018, ch. 1012, § 1.)
On March 18, 2019, defendant filed a motion to transfer the matter back to the juvenile court. The People opposed defendant's motion on the ground that Senate Bill 1391 is unconstitutional. On July 2, 2019, the trial court held a hearing on defendant's motion and concluded that Senate Bill 1391 is constitutional, so it transferred the matter back to the juvenile court.
On September 24, 2019, the trial court dismissed the matter in the adult criminal court pursuant to Senate Bill 1391.
On November 6, 2019, the People filed a notice of appeal.
DISCUSSION
Because defendant raises only legal issues and because the matter has not been tried, the facts underlying the offenses are not relevant and are omitted from this opinion. --------
The People argue that Senate Bill 1391 is unconstitutional because it is inconsistent with the electors' intent in enacting Proposition 57. The same argument was rejected by the Supreme Court in O.G. v. Superior Court (Feb. 25, 2021, S259011) ___ Cal.5th ___ [2021 Cal. LEXIS 1411, 8-9, 37] ("We ... hold that Senate Bill 1391 is a constitutional amendment to Proposition 57."). We are bound by our Supreme Court's holding. (Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962) 57 Cal.2d 450, 455.) We must therefore reject the People's argument and affirm.
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed.