In re T.L. CA2/6

DISCUSSION

T.L. was 11 when he committed the 2015 offense. At that time, the juvenile court had jurisdiction of “any person who is under 18 years of age when he or she violates any law of this state . . . .” (Former § 602, subd. (a); David C., supra, 53 Cal.App.5th at p. 518.) SB 439 amended section 602 to provide, with exceptions inapplicable here, that a minor is not within the

3 juvenile court’s jurisdiction if under 12 years of age at the time of the offense.3 (§ 602, subd. (a); David C., at p. 518.) T.L. argues that the change in section 602 was necessarily incorporated into his plea agreement, thereby nullifying the plea. It is true that changes in the law “apply even to a defendant who entered into a plea agreement,” but only “if the Legislature intended the change to apply to that defendant.” (People v King (2020) 52 Cal.App.5th 783, 793.) Thus, even if T.L.’s admission to the offense qualified as a negotiated plea agreement, he still must establish that the Legislature intended SB 439 to apply retroactively to his case. He has not met this burden. In In re Estrada (1965) 63 Cal.2d 740, our Supreme Court held that “[w]hen the Legislature amends a statute so as to lessen…