Narrative Opinion Summary
In this case, a juvenile contested a finding of unfitness for juvenile court treatment, challenging the application of Welfare and Institutions Code section 707. The court examined whether the presumption of unfitness under subdivision (c) applied to a charge of attempted robbery, ultimately determining it did not, as the offense is not listed in subdivision (b). The minor faced charges including attempted robbery and firearm possession, but the court found the district attorney's motion improperly relied on Section 707(b), rather than the applicable Section 707(a), which led to a prejudicial error by shifting the burden of proof to the petitioner. The court vacated the unfitness determination and directed it to be reconsidered only if the charges were amended to include an offense listed under subdivision (b). Otherwise, the case should be reconsidered under section 707(a). The court's decision underscores the necessity for procedural correctness in applying statutory presumptions of unfitness. Judges Feinberg and Barry-Deal concurred with the decision, emphasizing the importance of evaluating a minor’s fitness based on the statutory criteria of criminal sophistication, potential for rehabilitation, and other relevant factors.
Legal Issues Addressed
Application of Welfare and Institutions Code Section 707subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court determined that the presumption of unfitness under subdivision (c) of Section 707 does not apply to attempted robbery, as it is not listed among the offenses in subdivision (b).
Reasoning: The court found that the presumption of unfitness outlined in subdivision (c) does not apply to allegations of attempted robbery.
Criteria for Determining Minor's Fitness for Juvenile Treatmentsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court outlined the criteria under Section 707(a) for evaluating a minor's fitness for juvenile treatment, focusing on factors such as criminal sophistication and rehabilitation potential.
Reasoning: The excerpt also includes a detailed outline of Welfare and Institutions Code section 707(a), which establishes the criteria for determining a minor's fitness for juvenile court treatment based on various factors related to their criminal behavior and rehabilitation potential.
Procedural Error in Applying Section 707(b)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The district attorney's motion was improperly made under Section 707(b) instead of Section 707(a), leading the court to vacate the unfitness determination due to the prejudicial shift in the burden of persuasion.
Reasoning: The district attorney's motion was incorrectly made under section 707(b) instead of section 707(a), leading the court to accept the argument for a presumption of unfitness.
Specificity of Offenses under Section 707(b)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court clarified that attempted robbery does not fall under the offenses listed in Section 707(b), thus rejecting the Attorney General's argument equating attempted robbery with robbery while armed.
Reasoning: The court clarified that the presumption of unfitness only applies to the specific listed offenses, and since attempted robbery is not among them, the Attorney General's assertion that it falls under robbery while armed was rejected.