Reported / Citable
Background
In 2009, H.J. and KeAndre Windfield, both members of the Ramona Blocc Hustlas gang, shot and killed fellow gang member Montoyea Smith and wounded Ricky Peete after Smith pointed a gun at Windfield's sister. H.J., then 17, and Windfield left the scene, retrieved firearms, returned, and ambushed Smith. Both were convicted of first degree murder, attempted premeditated murder, and assault with a semiautomatic firearm, with firearm and gang enhancements, and sentenced to 90 years to life. H.J.'s sentence was repeatedly revisited on appeal in light of People v. Gutierrez, People v. Franklin, People v. Canizales, and Senate Bill 620. After Proposition 57 required a juvenile transfer hearing for youthful offenders, the case was remanded for a fitness hearing under Welfare and Institutions Code section 707.
At the transfer hearing, Probation Officer Kathryn Sloan recommended transfer to adult court, finding H.J. unsuitable under two of five statutory criteria: amenability to rehabilitation before expiration of juvenile jurisdiction and gravity of the offense. She emphasized H.J.'s ongoing violent conduct in prison, continued gang affiliation, and the two-year limit on juvenile court supervision. Dr. Marjorie Graham-Howard, a clinical psychologist, found H.J. criminally sophisticated and at high risk of recidivism, but opined he could be rehabilitated in two years with intensive services including gang intervention, and recommended against transfer. Jay Aguas, a former Division of Juvenile Justice deputy director, testified H.J. needed at least three years in the Anti-Recidivism Coalition program, exceeding juvenile court jurisdiction. The juvenile court found by clear and convincing evidence that H.J. was not amenable to rehabilitation, citing his gang entrenchment, violent prison conduct, recent felony convictions, rejection from the Secure Youth Treatment Facility, and the inadequacy of two years' supervision. The court dismissed the juvenile petition and ordered transfer to adult court.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal affirmed the transfer order, applying the abuse of discretion standard and reviewing the juvenile court's factual findings for substantial evidence. The court held that substantial evidence supported the juvenile court's findings on criminal sophistication and amenability to rehabilitation. Regarding criminal sophistication, the court credited Dr. Graham-Howard's opinion, H.J.'s long gang affiliation since age 12, the premeditated nature of the offense, H.J.'s denial of involvement showing awareness of wrongdoing, and his probation status at the time of the murder. The court rejected H.J.'s claim that the juvenile court misunderstood the law by considering post-offense conduct, holding that Welfare and Institutions Code section 707 authorizes consideration of all relevant evidence, including adult prison behavior, and that H.J. failed to object to the probation report or testimony about his prison conduct.
On amenability, the court upheld the juvenile court's finding that two years of juvenile probation was insufficient given H.J.'s age (34), rejection from SYTF, ongoing violent disciplinary infractions in prison, two recent felony convictions, continued gang activity, high SAVRY risk score, and the absence of any intensive rehabilitative program available to him. The court rejected H.J.'s argument that the inquiry should be retrospective, calling this a misapplication of the law that would lead to absurd results. The court emphasized that the transfer decision concerned a 34-year-old man with a history of violence and gang involvement, and that the juvenile court's finding of unamenability was supported by clear and convincing evidence. The matter was remanded for resentencing in adult court consistent with prior opinions, including a Franklin hearing for youth-related mitigation and discretion to strike firearm enhancements under Senate Bill 620.
Key Takeaways
- A juvenile court's transfer decision under Welfare and Institutions Code section 707 is reviewed for abuse of discretion, with factual findings reviewed for substantial evidence.
- The juvenile court may consider all relevant evidence, including post-offense conduct in adult prison, when assessing amenability to rehabilitation at a Proposition 57 transfer hearing.
- A minor's continued gang affiliation and violent behavior during incarceration are highly relevant to the amenability determination, even if the offense occurred decades earlier.
- The juvenile court is not bound by a probation officer's recommendation on any single criterion and may weigh conflicting expert testimony, including a defense expert's opinion that the minor is criminally sophisticated.
- The two-year maximum period of juvenile court supervision over an adult offender is a legitimate factor in finding unamenability where intensive, long-term rehabilitation is needed but unavailable within juvenile jurisdiction.
Why It Matters
In re H.J. clarifies that Proposition 57 transfer hearings for adults who committed offenses as juveniles are forward-looking inquiries focused on current amenability to rehabilitation within the limited juvenile jurisdiction period, not retrospective assessments of what might have been possible at the time of the offense. The decision affirms broad judicial discretion to weigh the five statutory criteria unequally and to consider post-conviction conduct, including prison disciplinary records and ongoing gang involvement, as relevant to rehabilitation prospects. It also reinforces that a juvenile court's articulated reasoning satisfies due process and statutory requirements so long as it is supported by substantial evidence. The case illustrates the practical challenges of applying juvenile rehabilitation frameworks to adults decades after their offenses, particularly when secure youth facilities are unavailable due to age and the offender's history poses safety risks to younger populations.