Filed 10/26/22 In re D.W. CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
In re D.W., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
THE PEOPLE, E078748 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super.Ct.No. INJ1500158) v. OPINION D.W.,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Elizabeth Tucker,
Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.) Affirmed.
Law Office of Zulu Ali & Associates and Whitney Ali for Defendant and
Appellant.
Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney
General, Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney General, Melissa Mandel and Tami
Falkenstein Hennick, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
1 D.W. is alleged to have participated in an attempted robbery when he was two
weeks short of his 18th birthday. When the victims tried to flee by driving away, D.W.
shot at the vehicle and struck one of the victims in the head, killing her. The juvenile
court concluded D.W., who was already 21 years old by the time the People filed a
wardship petition, was not amenable to treatment in the juvenile system and granted the
People’s motion under Welfare and Institutions Code1 section 707 to transfer him to adult
criminal court. D.W. appeals from that order. We affirm. I.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND2
On May 7, 2021, the People filed a petition in the juvenile court alleging D.W.
(who was 21 years old at the time) was a minor as described in Welfare and Institutions
Code section 602 because, on or about October 19, 2017 (when he was less than one
month shy of his 18th birthday), D.W. committed the felony offenses of first degree
murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a)) and attempted robbery by force and fear (Pen. Code,
§§ 664, 211). The petition also alleged D.W. personally and intentionally discharged a
firearm during the commission of the offenses and caused great bodily injury or death
(Pen. Code, §§ 12022.53, subd. (d), 1192.7, subd. (c)(8)); he committed the offenses for
the benefit of, at the direction of, and in association with a criminal street gang and with
1 All additional undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
2 The parties do not dispute the basic facts of the alleged offenses as summarized in the probation officer’s report. In addition, D.W. does not contend on appeal that the juvenile court’s order is not supported by substantial evidence.
2 the specific intent to promote, further and assist in criminal conduct by members of the
gang (Pen. Code, 186.22, subd. (b)); and he committed the murder while attempting to
flee after committing the attempted robbery (Pen. Code, § 190.2, subd. (a)(17)(A)).
When it filed the petition, the People filed a notice of motion under section 707 to
transfer D.W. from juvenile court to adult criminal court because he was not amendable
to treatment and rehabilitation through the juvenile court system.
During the detention hearing, the juvenile court granted a request under
section 741 by the probation department for the appointment of a psychologist to conduct
a psychological evaluation of D.W. The report was submitted July 13, 2021. D.W. told
the psychologist that he began to receive Social Security disability benefits at age five
because he had been diagnosed with bipolar disorder and attention deficit hyperactivity
disorder (ADHD). D.W. described his mother as “a helpful ‘mentor’” and his stepfather
as “caring.” Neither parent had substance abuse problems, and D.W. denied suffering
any childhood trauma in the home such as physical or sexual abuse or exposure to
domestic violence. D.W. reported that he attended special education classes from age
four and, although he attended high school into the 12th grade, he was short of credits
and did not graduate. He reported having difficulty learning and frustration in school,
and that he continued to have limited reading comprehension and that he had difficulty in
writing. D.W. reported he worked part-time and had never had “regular jobs.” Before
his arrest, D.W. lived in Arizona with his fiancé and their two sons. He denied having
ever received psychiatric treatment, though he believed he had received therapy at some
time in the past. D.W. said he was currently receiving behavioral health treatment, and
3 that he was prescribed the anti-psychotic medication Risperdal. He reported having
experienced hallucinations and hearing voices from age five to 16, and visual
hallucinations up to age 10. D.W. said he did not drink alcohol, use drugs, or abuse
prescription medication, and he denied that he had ever received treatment for substance
abuse. D.W.’s fiancé told the psychologist that D.W. is caring and a good father, and that
“he is not easily influenced by negative peers.”
The psychologist concluded D.W. “was well oriented” with “weak concentration
and below average short-term and long-term memory.” D.W. had limited intelligence,
limited vocabulary, and limited expressive and receptive speech abilities. He presented
with no auditory or visual hallucinations, and he had no grandiose or paranoid delusional
thinking. The psychologist recommended D.W. receive treatment, including intensive
psychotherapy, for his bipolar disorder and ADHD to control and manage manic episodes
and reduce impulsive behaviors; educational rehabilitation to address his learning
deficits; and, if needed, substance abuse treatment.
The probation department filed a suitability report with the juvenile court on
September 20, 2021. Deputy Probation Officer Castro had significant contact with D.W.
when the minor was 16 and 17 years old and under home supervision for prior burglaries.
After evaluating the statutory transfer factors laid out in section 707, the probation officer
recommended the juvenile court find that D.W. was not amenable to treatment in the
juvenile court system and that the court grant the prosecutor’s motion to transfer D.W. to
adult criminal court.
4 With respect to the first factor, the probation officer concluded D.W.’s criminal
sophistication during the planning and execution of the attempted robbery weighed in
favor of a transfer from juvenile court. Although D.W. was not the “mastermind” behind
the attempted robbery, he played an active role in the crime by arming himself with a
loaded firearm, using gloves when he loaded the weapon, taking advantage of a position
of trust he had with the victims, luring the victims to a park under the ruse of buying
Xanax, and cleaning and disposing of the weapon after the shooting. The probation
officer noted there was no evidence that D.W.’s mental or emotional health played a role
in his participation in the crime. Although D.W. was 17 years old at the time of the
offense, he was only two weeks shy of his 18th birthday and his “behavior and maturity
were consistent with his age and at times [he] appeared more mature for his age.” The
probation officer also stated there was no evidence D.W. had been pressured into
participating in the robbery and nobody forced him to fire his weapon.
For the second factor, the probation officer concluded D.W. could not be
successfully rehabilitated in the juvenile court system before the juvenile court lost
jurisdiction. D.W. was 21 years old at the time of the fitness hearing, and the court
would lose jurisdiction when he turned 25. Although D.W. could receive mental health
and rehabilitative services through the Division of Juvenile Justice, including the
Pathways to Success program, the probation officer noted D.W. had pending felony
charges for offenses allegedly committed when he was an adult, and a prison sentence for
those other offenses would take priority and interfere with his ability to obtain services in
the juvenile system. Moreover, considering his current age, his ability to obtain firearms
5 and willingness to carry them, and his apathetic demeanor and minimization of the
importance of the alleged offense indicate D.W. would require rehabilitative services
well beyond his 25th birthday.
As for the third factor, the probation officer opined that D.W.’s delinquent history
weighed in favor of a transfer to adult criminal court. Along with the instant juvenile
petition and pending adult charges for possessing a loaded firearm, D.W. had an extensive
delinquent history including assault with a deadly weapon or by force likely to cause great
bodily injury, various burglaries, and petty theft. Although D.W. had previously
successfully completed home supervision, he continued to reoffend. The probation officer
opined: “It is evident that even after his involvement in a situation where a person died,
the youth was unable to refrain from associating with negative peers and breaking the
law.” Despite prior attempts at intervention in the juvenile court system and a supportive
family, D.W.’s delinquent history was “serious and inexcusable.” Therefore, the
probation officer opined that “continuation of juvenile services would not appear to be
beneficial, but futile.”
With respect to the fourth factor, the success of previous attempts to rehabilitate
D.W. in the juvenile court system, the probation officer opined it weighed in favor of
retaining jurisdiction. Prior referrals, including services in the Wraparound program, had
not been successfully completed because D.W.’s attendance waned, and the services were
terminated when he re-offended and a subsequent petition was filed. The probation
officer opined that the probation department had “not yet exhausted all available
services” for D.W., some of which would still be available until he turned 25 years old.
6 Last, the probation officer concluded the fifth factor, the circumstances and
gravity of the current offense, weighed in favor of a transfer. He described the
circumstances of the attempted robbery and murder as “extremely serious.” D.W. and his
confederates lured the victims to a park under the guise of completing a drug deal, when
in fact they planned to rob the victims of Xanax at gunpoint. D.W. armed himself with a
loaded weapon, although the plan was only to use the firearms to intimidate the victims
and not to harm them. When the driver tried to flee, D.W. fired at the vehicle and killed
one of the occupants. He later claimed to have feared the driver was going to hit one of
his cohorts, though there was no indication the cohort was in any danger of being hit and
no one told him to shoot.
In granting the motion, the juvenile court concluded all five factors weighed in
favor of a transfer. For criminal sophistication, the court placed “great significance” on
the fact D.W. was just two weeks short of his 18th birthday at the time of the alleged
offenses. Although his cohorts were adults, there was no evidence they pressured D.W.
into participating in the robbery, and he “definitely played a very active role” in the
robbery. D.W. knew the plan was to rob the victims at gunpoint of their drugs and
weapons, and, although the plan was only to intimidate the victims, he armed himself
with a loaded firearm. D.W. wore gloves when he loaded the weapon. After the
shooting, D.W. wiped the weapon down with bleach and disposed of it to prevent law
enforcement from finding it. The court found D.W.’s ability to procure a weapon and
ammunition, and his accuracy in its use also demonstrated criminal sophistication.
Finally, the court emphasized the fact D.W. and his cohorts lured the victims to a park
7 where they could take advantage of their vulnerability, he and his cohorts surrounded the
vehicle, and D.W. shot at the vehicle when the victims tried to flee. Although the
psychological report indicated D.W. had been diagnosed with bipolar disorder and
ADHD, and he had learning disabilities, the court noted there was no evidence the
minor’s disorders influenced his actions. The probation officer indicated D.W. was
mature for his age around the time of the offenses, and there was no indication he acted
under pressure from his peers.
For the second factor, the juvenile court noted that, if D.W. remained in the
juvenile system, the “serious nature” of his offenses would result in him being committed
to the Pathways to Success program and the retention of jurisdiction until he turned
25 years old. Because D.W. was already 22 years old at the time of the ruling, he would
have at most two and a half years in the program. Moreover, if convicted of pending
adult criminal charges, he would have to serve that sentence before returning to the
juvenile system, “further limit[ing] the potential time for juvenile rehabilitative efforts.”
And, even if D.W. were not convicted of the pending adult charges, the court concluded
his actions during and immediately after the attempted robbery, and his evasive and
dishonest statements to the probation officer, indicated he would not likely take
advantage of rehabilitative services during the remaining time the court would have
jurisdiction.
For the third factor, the juvenile court noted D.W. had six petitions filed within a
span of three years, alleging felony and misdemeanor conduct. Despite reporting to the
probation officer that he had a supportive home, D.W.’s criminal activities escalated until
8 the current offense resulted in the loss of life. The court did not consider the pending
adult charges.
As for the fourth factor, the juvenile court concluded D.W. had previously been
ordered to participate in the Wraparound program, an intensive out-of-custody program
that provided multiple services to him and his family. Although he did well at first, his
participation lessened over time, and he reoffended. He was then placed out of the home
and provided with additional services and therapy, yet he still associated with negative
peers and engaged in serious illegal conduct. The court concluded that, while “not every
possible attempt to rehabilitate [D.W.] has been made, . . . the prior attempts have been
unsuccessful and it is unlikely that future juvenile attempts would be successful.”
Last, with respect to the gravity of the offenses, the juvenile court noted the
“current violation is the most serious and grave allegation that exists in our society”
because D.W.’s actions resulted in the loss of life. “The circumstances are extremely
serious as the evidence suggests that [D.W.] was an active participant in the robbery and
chose to bring a loaded firearm to fulfill his role of enforcer in case there were any
problems during the crime. [D.W.] and his accomplices lured the victims to their
location that resulted in them being in an extremely vulnerable position. [D.W.] fired his
gun numerous times at a car that was trying to get away from a dangerous situation. This
crime shows extreme callousness and a certain dangerousness and disregard to human life
that cannot be ignored.”
The juvenile court emphasized it based its ruling on the totality of the
circumstances, it did not base its ruling solely on the seriousness of the current offense,
9 and it considered the legislature’s preference for keeping more juvenile offenders in the
juvenile court system.
D.W. timely appealed.3
II.
DISCUSSION
A. Applicable Law and Standard of Review.
If a prosecutor wishes to pursue felony charges in adult criminal court against a
defendant who was at least 16 years old but not yet 18 years old at the time of the offense
or offenses, the prosecutor must file a petition in the juvenile court alleging the minor is a
ward of the court as described in section 602 then move the juvenile court to transfer the
proceeding to adult criminal court. (§ 707, subd. (a)(1).) Upon receipt of the transfer
motion, the juvenile court must order the probation department to prepare a report “on the
behavioral patterns and social history of the minor.” (Ibid.; see Cal. Rules of Court,
rule 5.768(a), (b).)
The prosecutor bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence
that the minor is not amendable to treatment in the juvenile system. (J.N. v. Superior
Court (2018) 23 Cal.App.5th 706, 715; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.770(a); see Evid.
Code, § 115 [“Except as otherwise provided by law, the burden of proof requires proof
by a preponderance of the evidence.”].) The point of the hearing on a transfer motion is
3 Effective January 1, 2022, an order transferring a minor from juvenile court to adult criminal court is appealable. (§ 801, subd. (a), as added by Stats. 2021, ch. 195, § 1; see People v. Pineda (2022) 78 Cal.App.5th 491, 497-498 [holding § 801 applies prospectively to transfer orders made on or after Jan. 1, 2022].)
10 not to determine whether the minor committed the alleged offense or offenses, but solely
to decide whether the minor will be a suitable candidate for treatment as a juvenile ward
if the allegations are later proven true. (People v. Chi Ko Wong (1976) 18 Cal.3d 698,
716; Kevin P. v. Superior Court (2020) 57 Cal.App.5th 173, 186.)
In deciding whether to transfer the minor to adult criminal court, the juvenile court
must consider five criteria: (1) “The degree of criminal sophistication exhibited by the
minor” (§ 707, subd. (a)(3)(A)(i)); (2) “Whether the minor can be rehabilitated prior to
the expiration of the juvenile court’s jurisdiction” (§ 707, subd. (a)(3)(B)(i)); (3) “The
minor’s previous delinquent history” (§ 707, subd. (a)(3)(C)(i)); (4) “Success of previous
attempts by the juvenile court to rehabilitate the minor” (§ 707, subd. (a)(3)(D)(i)); and
(5) “The circumstances and gravity of the offense alleged in the petition to have been
committed by the minor” (§ 707, subd. (a)(3)(E)(i)).
The criteria set forth in section 707, subdivision (a)(3), “are . . . merely factors for
the juvenile court to consider in exercising ‘broad discretion’ as to whether to retain
jurisdiction.” (People v. Padilla (2022) 13 Cal.5th 152, 167.) The relative weight to be
given to each of the criteria is within the sound discretion of the juvenile court. (D.W. v.
Superior Court (2019) 43 Cal.App.5th 109, 116; People v. Garcia (2018) 30 Cal.App.5th
316, 325.) “Nothing in section 707 indicates that the juvenile court [is] required to give
equal weight to each of the five criteria or that it would necessarily be an abuse of
discretion to find that one criterion outweigh[s] the other criteria.” (C.S. v. Superior
Court (2018) 29 Cal.App.5th 1009, 1035.)
11 If the juvenile court orders the minor to be transferred to adult criminal court, “the
court shall recite the basis for its decision in an order entered upon the minutes.” (§ 707,
subd. (a)(3); see Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.770(c).) The statement of reasons for finding
that a minor is unfit for treatment as a juvenile “must set forth the basis for the order with
sufficient specificity to permit meaningful review.” (Kent v. United States (1966)
383 U.S. 541, 561; see In re Sturm (1974) 11 Cal.3d 258, 269.) “In most cases, this
requirement will be met where the juvenile court performs a factual analysis of the
relevant factors as to each criterion . . . and then specifies the criteria that weighed in
favor of transfer.” (C.S. v. Superior Court, supra, 29 Cal.App.5th at p. 1029.)
An order transferring a minor to adult criminal court is reviewed for abuse of
discretion. (People v. Superior Court (Jones) (1998) 18 Cal.4th 667, 680.) Generally, a
juvenile court abuses its discretion if it acts in an arbitrary or capricious manner, or if the
court’s order otherwise exceeds the bounds of reason. (In re Ricardo P. (2019) 7 Cal.5th
1113, 1118.) “The court’s factual findings [in support of a transfer order] are reviewed
for substantial evidence, and its legal conclusions are reviewed de novo. [Citation.] A
decision based on insufficient evidence or the court’s ‘“erroneous understanding of
applicable law”’ is subject to reversal.” (Kevin P. v. Superior Court, supra,
57 Cal.App.5th at p. 187.)
The substantial evidence standard of review is deferential, and the reviewing court
must view the record in the light most favorable to the juvenile court’s ruling. (In re R.V.
(2015) 61 Cal.4th 181, 200.) “Substantial evidence is evidence that is ‘of ponderable
legal significance,’ ‘reasonable in nature, credible, and of solid value,’ and ‘“substantial”
12 proof of the essentials which the law requires in a particular case.’” (Conservatorship of
O.B. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 989, 1006; see People v. Johnson (1980) 26 Cal.3d 557, 576.) “In
reviewing factual determinations for substantial evidence, a reviewing court should ‘not
reweigh the evidence, evaluate the credibility of witnesses, or resolve evidentiary
conflicts.’ [Citation.] “The determinations should ‘be upheld if . . . supported by
substantial evidence, even though substantial evidence to the contrary also exists and the
trial court might have reached a different result had it believed other evidence.’” (In re
Caden C. (2021) 11 Cal.5th 614, 640.)
B. The Juvenile Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion.
D.W. argues the juvenile court did not properly consider the transfer factors set
forth in section 707. We disagree.
1. Criminal sophistication.
When determining the minor’s level of criminal sophistication displayed during
the commission of the offense or offenses alleged in the petition, “the juvenile court may
give weight to any relevant factor, including, but not limited to, the minor’s age,
maturity, intellectual capacity, and physical, mental, and emotional health at the time of
the alleged offense, the minor’s impetuosity or failure to appreciate risks and
consequences of criminal behavior, the effect of familial, adult, or peer pressure on the
minor’s actions, and the effect of the minor’s family and community environment and
childhood trauma on the minor’s criminal sophistication.” (§ 707, subd. (a)(3)(A)(ii).)
13 The juvenile court must “consider the whole picture, that is, all the evidence that
might bear on the minor’s criminal sophistication, including any criminal sophistication
manifested in the present crime.” (People v. Superior Court (Jones), supra, 18 Cal.4th at
pp. 683-684.) Evidence of criminal sophistication includes detailed planning and
execution of the alleged offense; the fact the minor obtained a firearm, gloves, and a
mask beforehand; the selection of a specific victim because the minor believed he or she
would not be apprehended; and disposal of evidence that might link the minor to the
offense. (Id. at p. 684.)
As noted, ante, in finding D.W. displayed criminal sophistication during the
attempted robbery, the juvenile court placed “great significance” on the fact D.W. was just
two weeks short of his 18th birthday at the time, and there was no evidence he was
pressured into participating in the robbery by his adult cohorts. Moreover, the record
supports the court’s conclusion that, although he was not the mastermind who planned the
robbery, D.W. “played a very active role” in the crime. As the court indicated, D.W.
knew the plan was to rob the victims of their drugs and weapons and, although the plan
was only to intimidate the victims, he armed himself with a loaded firearm. He also
demonstrated criminal sophistication by wearing gloves when he loaded the weapon,
wiping the weapon down with bleach after the shooting, and disposing of it. We also
agree with the juvenile court that the plan for the crime, which D.W. helped to execute,
demonstrated criminal sophistication. He and his cohorts lured the victims to a park,
14 where they could take advantage of their vulnerability, he and his cohorts surrounded the
vehicle, and D.W. shot at the vehicle when the victims tried to flee.4
2. Successful treatment before the expiration of jurisdiction.
When deciding whether the minor can be successfully treated before the expiration
of juvenile court jurisdiction—in this case, when D.W. turns 25 years old (§ 1769,
subd. (b))—“the juvenile court may give weight to any relevant factor, including, but not
limited to, the minor’s potential to grow and mature.” (§ 707, subd. (a)(3)(B)(ii).)
The juvenile court concluded that, because of the “serious nature” of D.W.’s
offenses, if he were to remain in the juvenile court system, he would be committed to the
Pathways to Success program and jurisdiction would be retained until he turned 25 years
old. However, because D.W. was already 22 years old at the time of the ruling, at most
he would have had two and a half years in the program. In addition, if he were convicted
of pending adult criminal charges, his sentence for those charges would have to be served
before he could return to the juvenile system, “further limit[ing] the potential time for
juvenile rehabilitative efforts.” Moreover, the court indicated that, even if D.W. were not
convicted of the pending adult charges, it was very unlikely that he could be successfully
rehabilitated in two and a half years. Based on the record, including the probation
officer’s report and testimony, the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion by
4 Although the juvenile court did not do so, we note that the selection of the victims—drug dealers who are not likely to report a robbery—also demonstrates a level of criminal sophistication. (People v. Superior Court (Jones), supra, 18 Cal.4th at p. 684; cf. In re Harper (2022) 76 Cal.App.5th 450, 462, fn. 6 [“[A] defendant might steal from a drug dealer, an undocumented immigrant, or even a family member and reasonably assume the victim will be reluctant to report the crime to the police.”].)
15 concluding successful rehabilitation would require services beyond the mandatory date of
D.W.’s discharge from the juvenile system.
3. Delinquent history.
When evaluating the minor’s delinquent history, “the juvenile court may give
weight to any relevant factor, including, but not limited to, the seriousness of the minor’s
previous delinquent history and the effect of the minor’s family and community
environment and childhood trauma on the minor’s previous delinquent behavior.”
(§ 707, subd. (a)(3)(C)(ii).)
As the juvenile court indicated, D.W. had six petitions filed and adjudicated in the
juvenile court within a span of three years alleging felony and misdemeanor conduct. In
his brief, D.W. argues his “criminal history is not significant.” Although the juvenile
court declined to consider D.W.’s pending adult criminal charges for possessing a
firearm, the court was permitted to consider conduct that occurred after the minor’s
current offense as well as conduct that did not result in the filing of a wardship petition.
(D.C. v. Superior Court (2021) 71 Cal.App.5th 441, 451-456.) As the court concluded,
despite his receipt of services for adjudicated conduct, his criminal activities escalated to
the point where his actions resulted in the loss of life.
4. Success of prior treatment.
When evaluating the success (or lack thereof) of previous attempts to rehabilitate
the minor within the juvenile court system, “the juvenile court may give weight to any
relevant factor, including, but not limited to, the adequacy of the services previously
provided to address the minor’s needs.” (§ 707, subd. (a)(3)(D)(ii).)
16 D.W. had previously participated in the Wraparound program. He did well at first,
but his participation lessened over time, and he reoffended. He was then removed from
his home and provided with additional services and therapy, yet he still associated with
negative peers and engaged in serious illegal conduct. Like the probation officer, the
juvenile court concluded “not every possible attempt to rehabilitate [D.W.] has been
made.” But, contrary to the implicit suggestion in D.W.’s brief, it was not required to
agree with the probation officer that the factor ultimately weighed in favor of retention of
jurisdiction. Both the court and the probation officer concluded it was unlikely that D.W.
could be successfully rehabilitated within the juvenile system in the remaining time. We
find no abuse of discretion.
5. Circumstances and gravity of the current offense.
Finally, when considering the circumstances and gravity of the offenses or
offenses alleged in the petition, “the juvenile court may give weight to any relevant
factor, including, but not limited to, the actual behavior of the person, the mental state of
the person, the person’s degree of involvement in the crime, the level of harm actually
caused by the person, and the person’s mental and emotional development.” (§ 707,
subd. (a)(3)(E)(ii).) “The gravity criterion . . . is ‘based on the premise that the minor
did, in fact, commit the offense.’” (Kevin P. v. Superior Court, supra, 57 Cal.App.5th at
p. 189, quoting People v. Superior Court (Jones), supra, 18 Cal.4th at p. 682.) When
evaluating this criterion, the juvenile court may consider evidence that, “‘while not
justifying or excusing the crime, tends to lessen its magnitude . . . .’” (Kevin P., at p. 189,
quoting Jones, at p. 685.)
17 To minimize the circumstances and gravity of his offenses, D.W. argues he “was
only there as backup to an already planned drug transaction and robbery,” and he fired his
weapon because he believed the driver of the weapon was going to hit and kill his
brother. We are not persuaded. As the juvenile court indicated, the “current violation is
the most serious and grave allegation that exists in our society” because it resulted in the
loss of life. Likewise, we agree with the juvenile court that the circumstances of the
offense were grave indeed. D.W. was tasked with providing backup to intimidate the
victims but, unbeknownst to his cohorts, he armed himself with a loaded handgun. He
helped lure the victims to the park, where they were more vulnerable. And, when the
victims tried to flee, he fired at the vehicle and killed one of the victims. Although the
court could have considered D.W.’s explanation for why he fired his weapon, based on
the totality of the circumstances of the offenses, we cannot say the court abused its
discretion when it ruled the circumstances demonstrated “extreme callousness, . . .
dangerousness and disregard to human life” such that the gravity and circumstances and
offenses weighed in favor of transfer D.W. to adult criminal court.
18 III.
DISPOSITION
The order transferring D.W. from juvenile court to adult criminal court is
affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
McKINSTER J. We concur:
RAMIREZ P. J.
FIELDS J.