People v. Superior Court (Alexander C.)

Good Law
246 Cal. Rptr. 3d 712·34 Cal. App. 5th 994
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 30, 2019A156194California3,811 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Tucher, J.

*997 Proposition 57, enacted by voters in 2016, eliminated 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, Proposition 57 requires a district attorney to obtain juvenile court approval before prosecuting minors in criminal court. In 2018, the Legislature further restricted a district attorney's ability to treat minors as adults by enacting Senate Bill 1391, which prohibits the transfer of 14- and 15-year-old offenders to criminal court in almost all circumstances. The Solano County District Attorney argues the new law is invalid because it is inconsistent with and does not further the intent of Proposition 57. We disagree and will deny the District Attorney's petition for writ of mandate.

I. BACKGROUND

We begin by summarizing two decades of change in the law relating to the prosecution of minors.

Historically, the laws of this state required a juvenile court to declare a minor unfit for the juvenile system before a district attorney could prosecute that minor in criminal court. ( People v. Superior Court (Lara ) (2018) 4 Cal.5th 299 , 305, 228 Cal.Rptr.3d 394…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.