Ventura County juvenile cases unaffected by California court decision on Prop 57

Ventura

A recent California Supreme Court ruling on the expansion of Proposition 57, which deals with how juvenile cases move to adult court, will not affect any pending Ventura County cases.

That's because the court decision confirmed what the Ventura County District Attorney's Office had been doing since the law changed in November 2016.

The state's highest court held that the law should be applied retroactively and to juvenile cases that were pending or on appeal. The proposition did not address that issue so district attorneys were left to develop their own policies.

The measure changed the law so that prosecutors could no longer file complaints against juveniles directly in adult court. Now, a judge decides whether a juvenile case should be moved to adult court after prosecutors file a motion for a transfer hearing.

"Now the prosecution, as the moving party, has the burden of proving that the case should be transferred to adult court," said Michael Rodriguez, a Ventura County chief deputy public defender.

According to Stacy Ratner, a supervising senior deputy district attorney who oversees juvenile cases, that shift in responsibility initially kept prosecutors busy.

"Originally, when the law changed, we had to run in and file a bunch of them," Ratner said.

The district attorney's office was not in favor of the ballot measure.

It was a package known as The Public Safety and Rehabilitation Act of 2016 and dealt with two issues, including the change to juvenile cases. It also increased parole and good behavior opportunities for inmates convicted of nonviolent offenses.

Ratner said the new process for moving juvenile cases tends to "tilt in favor of the defendant." It also could make it difficult to seek justice for victims, especially in homicide cases when prosecutors want cases moved to adult court.

Rodriguez, who also oversees juvenile cases, said the measure ensures the rights of minors.

"So long as children can potentially be tried as adults, they should have the right to a full evidentiary hearing in front of a neutral magistrate," Rodriguez said.

When the California Supreme Court weighed in to clear up any confusion on the matter, the Feb. 1 ruling affirmed local prosecutors' assumption. The decision was unanimous.

“The possibility of being treated as a juvenile in juvenile court — where rehabilitation is the goal — rather than being tried and sentenced as an adult can result in dramatically different and more lenient treatment. Therefore, Proposition 57 reduces the possible punishment for a class of persons, namely juveniles,” Associate Justice Ming Chin wrote, citing a 1965 ruling.

Defendants whose juvenile convictions are pending appeal are also entitled to a transfer hearing.

Under Proposition 57, a juvenile defendant's case is eligible for transfer to adult court if they were 16 or 17 at the time they allegedly committed a felony. Juvenile cases for defendants who were 14 or 15 at the time of the alleged crime are only eligible to be transferred for certain crimes. They include murder, attempted murder, rape, voluntary manslaughter, kidnapping, arson or robbery.

Ventura police were investigating a stabbing Tuesday morning. A man was found Monday night but died Tuesday.

A Riverside County case involving kidnapping and sex crimes offenses garnered the California Supreme Court's attention on the Proposition 57 issue.

The charges were filed against the juvenile in June 2016. Within nearly a week of the measure's approval, the minor successfully requested the trial court grant him a hearing in juvenile court. Prosecutors petitioned the 4th District Court of Appeal to review that decision but the appellate court denied the request and upheld the trial court’s ruling.

Prosecutors still sought the case be moved back to adult court even after the hearing was held. That’s when the California Supreme Court stepped in and stayed all proceedings until the court ruled on the issue.

Since the law changed, Ventura County prosecutors have filed 23 motions for transfer hearings to adult court. Each one represents an individual juvenile defendant because in juvenile court, minors' cases are handled individually even if they allegedly were involved in the same crime, Ratner said.

Nine of them were related to murder offenses and there is one defendant facing three counts of attempted homicide. The other offenses include robbery, shooting at an occupied dwelling and assault with a deadly weapon, Ratner said.

Of the 23 motions filed, nine resulted in a transfer to adult court and four remained in juvenile court. The majority of the motions for the other 10 defendants are pending while the other remaining motions have been withdrawn, Ratner said.

"Pending means a judge hasn't made a decision," Ratner said.

Among those that have not been decided include the cases of two Ventura males, 16 and 17, who appeared in juvenile court on Feb. 6 to face gang-related murder allegations.

The accusations stem from a 2017 Christmas night homicide in Ventura. The victim, Joseph Cruz, 30, was found stabbed to death in a parking structure on East Harbor Boulevard.

A third defendant, Chris Gallegos, 20, of Ventura, also faces gang-related murder charges in the killing.

Most of the time, juvenile court proceedings are closed to the public. However, the nature of the offenses both teens face meant last week's proceedings were open.

Since the defendants are in the early stages of the process, attorneys for the juvenile defendants agreed to have both minors present in court at the same time on Feb. 6.

Judge Brian Back explained to them that the Ventura County Probation Agency will conduct an investigation into the juveniles and create a report with a recommendation. Probation officers are to produce the report in court on March 27 and sometime after that an evidentiary hearing may proceed, Back said.

Ratner said a minor's familial history and social history is considered in the report as well as the crime itself. Rodriguez said other factors include the sophistication of the crime, the juvenile's previous delinquent history and success of previous attempts at rehabilitation by the juvenile court.

Ratner said it's possible that both the defense and prosecution will agree on the recommended by probation.

A judge makes a final decision after reading the report and considering arguments made in the evidentiary hearing.