C.S. v. Superior Court

C.S. (defendant) committed a gang-related assault that caused the victim’s death when C.S. was 15 years old. C.S. was charged as an adult and convicted. Prior to his sentencing, California enacted a new law, the Public Safety and Rehabilitation Act of 2016, which provided that all juveniles must be first charged in juvenile court. The law eliminated the presumption that for juveniles over the age of 14, certain offenses were presumptively unfit for juvenile court. Rather, in all cases, the prosecutor had to file a motion requesting transfer. A retrospective transfer hearing was held. The court ordered C.S. transferred to adult court. The court’s written order made factual findings regarding each of the five statutory criteria. For the first factor, criminal sophistication, the court noted that C.S. indicated some sophistication by sending a text message after the crime indicating that he did not want to discuss the matter in texts. However, C.S.’s age, upbringing, and childhood trauma suggested that he was not very sophisticated. Regarding likelihood of rehabilitation during juvenile court jurisdiction, the trial court noted that the charged offenses were violent and serious and that C.S. was already 21 at the time of the hearing and could be held in juvenile detention only until the age of 23. Therefore, the likelihood of rehabilitation was low and this factor favored transfer. As to prior delinquent history, the court found that C.S.’s prior history was minimal. For previous attempts at rehabilitation, the court found that C.S. had not received many prior services, because his prior offenses were minor. Finally, the court found that the circumstances and gravity of the offense strongly supported transfer. C.S. directly and intentionally killed an innocent victim. C.S. appealed the transfer order.