BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 1709
Page 1
Date of Hearing: March 27, 2012
Counsel: Milena Blake
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Tom Ammiano, Chair
AB 1709 (Mitchell) - As Amended: March 14, 2012
SUMMARY : Requires any minor, 16 years of age or older at the
time of the commission of an offense that could be used as a
future felony conviction under the "Three Strikes" law, be tried
by a jury. Specifically, this bill :
1)Requires that a jury trial under this section proceed in the
same manner as a jury trial in a criminal court, as specified.
2)Specifies that the right to a jury trial does not affect the
right of a detained youth to a trial within 15 days of the
filing of the petition to declare the youth a ward of the
court.
3)Removes the authority of the juvenile court to temporarily
commit a minor who has been adjudicated a ward of the court
due to habitual disobedience or truancy to a diagnostic and
treatment center of the Division of Juvenile Facilities.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Provides that a prior juvenile adjudication shall constitute a
prior conviction for the purposes of sentence enhancement
under the Three Strikes law if all the following apply:
a) The juvenile was 16 years of age or older at the time he
or she committed the prior offense.
b) The prior offense was one of the enumerated offenses for
which a minor 14 years of age older can be certified to
adult court for trial as an adult, or would be a "serious"
or "violent" felony under adult law.
c) The juvenile was found to be a fit and proper subject to
be dealt with under the juvenile court law.
AB 1709
Page 2
d) The juvenile was adjudged to be a ward of the court
because the juvenile committed one of the above offenses.
�Penal Code Section 667 (d)(3)(A) to (D).]
2)Provides that if a defendant is convicted of a felony offense
and it is pled and proved that the defendant has previously
been convicted of two or more serious or violent offenses as
specified, the term for the current conviction is an
indeterminate term of life in prison with the minimum term
calculated as the greater of 25 years, three times the term
provided for each current felony conviction, or the
determinate term which would otherwise be imposed including
enhancements. (Penal Code Sections 667 and 1170.12.)
3)Provides that if a defendant is convicted of a felony offense
and it is pled and proved that the defendant has been
convicted of one prior serious or violent offense as defined,
the term of imprisonment is twice the term otherwise imposed
for the current offense. (Penal Code Sections 667 and
1170.12.)
4)States that an order adjudging a minor to be a ward of the
juvenile court shall not be deemed a conviction of a crime for
any purpose, nor shall a proceeding in the juvenile court be
deemed a criminal proceeding. (Welfare and Institutions Code
Section 203.)
5)Authorizes the juvenile court to obtain jurisdiction over any
minor who violates any state or federal law or local ordinance
defining a crime other than establishing a curfew based on
age, and declare that minor a ward of the court. (Welfare and
Institutions Code Section 602.)
6)Authorizes the juvenile court to obtain jurisdiction over a
minor who persistently or habitually refuses to obey the
reasonable and proper orders or directions of his or her
parents, guardian, or custodian, or who is beyond the control
of that person, or who violated a local ordinance establishing
a curfew based on age, and declare that minor a ward of the
court. (Welfare and Institutions Code Section 601.)
7)Authorizes the juvenile court to temporarily commit a minor
who has been adjudicated a ward of the court due to habitual
disobedience or truancy or due to violation of any state or
AB 1709
Page 3
federal law or local ordinance defining crime to a diagnostic
and treatment center of the Division of Juvenile Facilities.
(Welfare and Institutions Code Section 777.)
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown.
COMMENTS :
1)Author's Statement : According to the author, "Current law
allows for a minor to be tried for a strikeable offense
without having the right to a jury trial. This has led to a
grave inequality in which minors have admitted to offenses
that they did not commit in order to avoid future strike
consequences. Offenses that could be filed as misdemeanors or
felonies at the discretion of the prosecution, and which would
be filed as misdemeanors in adult court, are filed as felonies
in juvenile court. An example of this is a minor who was
charged with felony assault with a deadly weapon for throwing
an avocado. This bill would ensure due process and fairness
for youth who may be subjected to juvenile offenses being used
against them in the future by requiring that the minor have a
right to a jury trial."
2)Background : According to information provided by the author's
office, "One of the most fundamental due process rights in
American Jurisprudence, that of right to a jury trial, is a
right not afforded to youths in the juvenile justice system.
Juvenile courts are closed in an effort to assure that the
privacy of the minor is respected. This is true even when
youths are being tried for offenses that would count as a
strike against their criminal record-potentially subjecting
them to life in prison. In these cases minors should have the
option of forgoing privacy to ensure due process.
"The goal of the juvenile court, where minors under the age of
18 have their criminal cases decided, has been to rehabilitate
rather than to punish, youth. For this reason, proceedings
have traditionally been confidential, records have been
sealed, and all efforts have been directed towards providing
the therapeutic services and guidance the youth and their
family needed.
"It is due to the traditionally stark differences between
juvenile and adult court, that minors in juvenile court are
not afforded the right to a jury trial-the idea being that
AB 1709
Page 4
treatment in juvenile court should be less formal, less
punitive, and that consequences should not carry into the
child's adult life. Thus, a bedrock principle of the
California juvenile justice system is that 'an order
adjudicating a minor to be a ward of the juvenile court shall
not be deemed a conviction of a crime for any purpose, nor
shall a proceeding in the juvenile court be deemed a criminal
conviction.' (Welfare and Institutions Code section 203.)
"The passage of Proposition 21 in 1998 created an anomaly in
the law allowing the use of juvenile adjudications as
"strikes" in future sentencings. Accordingly, any youth 16 or
older who commits one of any number of offenses, will, if
sentenced face the possibility of either a doubled sentence or
a sentence of twenty five years to life. The implementation
of this law has subjected juveniles to a system where they
must now face adult consequences, without some of the basic
protections afforded adults. These minors can be subjected to
life in prison based on offenses committed while they were
under the age of 16, despite the reality that they were not
entitled to have a jury decide innocence or guilt.
"The practical reality of this grave inequality is that minors
have admitted to offenses that they didn't commit in order to
avoid future strike consequences. Offenses that could be
filed as misdemeanors or felonies at the discretion of the
prosecution, and which would be filed as misdemeanors in adult
court, are filed as felonies in juvenile court. An example of
this is a minor who was charged with felony assault with a
deadly weapon for throwing an avocado. Clearly examples such
as this do not comport with either the original intent of the
juvenile justice system or the original three strikes law."
3)Due Process in the Juvenile Court: Under California law, a
juvenile court proceeding is not considered a criminal
proceeding, and an adjudication as a ward of the juvenile
court is not equivalent to a criminal conviction. (Welfare
and Institutions 203.) However, the United States Supreme
Court has held that juvenile proceedings, while not criminal
in nature, are required to provide certain procedural
safeguards. �In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 (1967).] These
protections include the right to counsel, notice of charges, a
fair and impartial hearing, the opportunity to confront and
cross-examine witnesses, and protection against
self-incrimination. (Ibid., at 55.) The court later held
AB 1709
Page 5
that minors are entitled to the same "beyond a reasonable
doubt" standard that adult defendants are entitled to. �In re
Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 364 (1970).]
In 1971, the Court held that despite the other Constitutional
protections extended to minors in juvenile court proceedings,
minors were not entitled to a jury trial in order to comply
with due process. �McKeiver v. Pennsylvania, 403 U.S. 528
(1971).] In coming to this conclusion, the Court emphasized
superior diagnostic and rehabilitative services, the lower
level of culpability, and the intimate, informal and
protective approach of the juvenile court that sought to
rehabilitate rather than punish. (Ibid., at 539-40.) Because
juvenile adjudications are now available to be used as
previous "strikes" for sentencing purposes, as discussed
below, it is questionable if the Court would find the
rehabilitative nature of the juvenile court is best preserved
without jury trials.
4)Background on Three Strikes and Juvenile Adjudications : The
Three Strikes law was enacted by AB 971 (Jones/Costa), Chapter
12, Statutes of 1994, and by Proposition 184 passed by the
voters on November 8, 1994. Under the Three Strikes Law, a
juvenile adjudication may constitute an adult strike prior,
although a minor is not entitled to a jury trial; a person
sentenced under the Three Strikes law may not be committed to
any facility other than prison; the Three Strikes Law
prohibits plea-bargaining; Three Strikes eliminates any
"wash-out" period, requiring that any prior or serious or
violent felony conviction be used regardless of when it
occurred; and, requires the prosecuting attorney to plead and
prove each prior felony conviction. The purpose of this law is
to "ensure longer prison sentences and greater punishment for
those who commit a felony and have been previously convicted
of serious and/or violent felony offenses." �Penal Code
Section 667(b).]
On March 7, 2000, the voters approved Proposition 21, known as
the Gang Violence and Juvenile Crime Prevention Act. The
proposition increased penalties for gang activity, allowed for
the direct file of specific criminal charges against minors in
adult court, and increased the number of juvenile
adjudications eligible for sentence enhancements under Three
Strikes. �Ballot Pamp., Primary Election. (March 7, 2000)
text of Prop. 21.] The passage of Proposition 21, when viewed
AB 1709
Page 6
in conjunction with the Three Strikes sentencing provisions,
fundamentally changed the nature of the juvenile justice
system. Although the stated purpose of the juvenile court is
to rehabilitate rather than punish �Welfare and Institutions
202(b)], and an adjudication in a juvenile court is deemed not
to be a criminal conviction (Welfare and Institutions 203),
for minors facing a juvenile strike, the future implications
are the same as an adult facing a strike. Are minors
constitutionally entitled to similar protections for similar
consequences?
5)Argument in Support : According to the California Public
Defenders Association , "Because there is no right to a jury
trial in juvenile court, overcharging and overfiling of cases
is a common problem. It is commonly known that overcharging
is a regular practice in juvenile court: "Wobblers" - offenses
which could be filed as misdemeanors or felonies at the
discretion of the prosecutor--, and which would be filed as
misdemeanors in adult court, are filed as felonies in juvenile
court. A mentally ill youth in juvenile hall was charged with
a strike when he punched another youth who was running at him,
and chipped the youth's tooth. He admitted the strike to
obtain a mental health bed in placement. A former foster
youth was charged with felony assault with a deadly weapon for
throwing an avocado in a group home. A girl in foster group
home was charged - her first offense ever-with felony
vandalism for pushing her chair back angrily and scratching
the wall. Thefts of iPods or lunch money are routinely
charged as robberies, petty thefts are charged as commercial
burglaries, and any offense which can be 'upgraded' usually
is?
"In the past decade, cutting edge neuroscience on adolescent
development, demonstrates that youth are more likely than
adults to consider only the immediate effects of their act
rather than the long term consequences. Because they live in
the moment, adolescents feel that they have less of a stake in
the future. While this is not a surprise to any parent who
has raised a teen, the implications for plea bargaining in
juvenile court are enormous; kids will and do readily admit
strike offenses without a second thought as to the impact on
their future, especially when the immediate consequences may
be as minimal as being placed home on probation."
6)Argument in Opposition : According to the Judicial Council of
AB 1709
Page 7
California , "Many juvenile court facilities in California have
no means to accommodate juries. They have no jury boxes in
the court rooms and no jury assembly rooms in the courthouses.
As a result, court facilities would need to be modified as
significant expense to accommodate these trials, or juvenile
court proceedings would need to be held in the adult criminal
court facility. The latter result would be costly and
disruptive. Because the jury trial would need to be held
within 15 days, courts would be challenged to call a
sufficient number of jurors to meet this new demand.
Moreover, trying to add numerous additional trials into
already heavily burdened criminal court facilities would hard
the court's ability to meet its existing criminal court
calendars. Finally there would be logistical problems
associate with shifting the personnel and alleges wards from
one part of the county (where the juvenile detention facility
and the court are located) to the locale in the county where
the adult court is located so that a jury trial can be
provided. All this would add cost and workload to already
overburdened courts."
7)Previous Legislation : AB 1751 (Ammiano), of the 2009-10
Legislative Session, would have deleted a prior juvenile
adjudication from the definition of "prior felony conviction"
for the purposes of sentencing under the "Three Strikes" law.
AB 1751 failed passage on the Assembly floor.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
California Public Defenders Association (Sponsor)
American Civil Liberties Union
California Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry
California Attorneys for Criminal Justice
Drug Policy Alliance
Ella Baker Center for Human Rights
Friends Committee on Legislation of California
Legal Services for Prisoners with Children
Opposition
California District Attorneys Association
Judicial Council of California
AB 1709
Page 8
Analysis Prepared by : Milena Blake / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744