In re A.M.

Filed 5/31/

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

In re A.M., a Person Coming 2d Juv. No. B329999 Under the Juvenile Court Law. (Super. Ct. No. 2009024052) (Ventura County)

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

A.M.,

Defendant and Appellant.

When a court vacates a sentence, the judgment in that case becomes nonfinal for purposes of retroactively applying ameliorative laws. (People v. Padilla (2022) 13 Cal.5th 152, 161-162 (Padilla); see In re Estrada (1965) 63 Cal.2d 740 (Estrada).) Applying that principle here, we conclude that a judgment becomes nonfinal when a minor defendant sentenced as an adult prior to the electorate’s passage of Proposition 57 (Prop. 57) subsequently has their sentence conditionally reversed on habeas corpus. Such a defendant is entitled to the benefit of ameliorative laws enacted since the imposition of their original sentence. Here, that includes Senate Bill No. 1391 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.) (Senate Bill 1391), which amended Prop. 57 to prohibit the transfer of 14- and 15-year-olds to adult criminal court, and Assembly Bill No. 333 (2021-2022 Reg.…