People v. Blay CA1/5 ( 2023 )

Filed 5/16/23 P. v. Blay CA1/5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or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
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FIVE
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, A166315
v.
DEANDRE MAURICE BLAY, (Marin County
Defendant and Appellant. Super. Ct. No. JV-26919A)
MEMORANDUM OPINION1
After a jury found Deandre Maurice Blay guilty of first degree murder,
preventing a victim from testifying, and conspiracy (Pen. Code, §§ 187, 189,
subd. (a), 136.1, 182), with true findings on special circumstance allegations
(Pen. Code, § 190.2, subd. (a)(10) [killing to prevent testimony], (15) [by lying
in wait]) and myriad sentence enhancement allegations, the Marin Superior
Court sentenced him to 25 years to life in prison with the possibility of parole.
(People v. Blay (Sept. 16, 2019, A138380) [nonpub. opn.], mod. Oct. 15, 2019,
pp. 2, 137–138, 139.)2
Cal. Stds. Jud. Admin., § 8.1; Ct. App., First Dist., Local Rules of Ct.,
1
rule 19.
We cite this court’s prior opinion only for background. (Cal. Rules of
2
Court, rule 8.1115(a), (b); The Utility Reform Network v. Public Utilities Com.
(2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 945, 951, fn. 3.)
1
Though Blay was 17 years old when he committed these crimes, the
People charged him in criminal court in 2009 under former Welfare and
Institutions Code section 707, subdivision (d)(1). (See Stats. 2008, ch. 179,
§ 236, pp. 903, 905–906, 907, eff. Jan. 1, 2009.) While his prior appeal was
pending, voters passed “The Public Safety and Rehabilitation Act of 2016”
(Off. Voter Information Guide, Gen. Elec. (Nov. 8, 2016), text of Prop. 57, § 1,
p. 141), amending former Welfare and Institutions Code sections 602 and 707
to require the People to charge a minor in juvenile court unless the juvenile
court determines after a transfer hearing that the minor should be tried and
sentenced as an adult (Off. Voter Information Guide, supra, text of Prop. 57,
§§ 4.1–4.2, pp. 141–145). (See People v. Superior Court (Lara) (2018) 4
Cal.5th 299, 303, 305–307 [background], 303–304 [act applies retroactively];
accord, People v. Padilla (2022) 13 Cal.5th 152, 167.) In disposing of Blay’s
prior appeal, this court remanded the matter to the Marin Juvenile Court to
conduct such a transfer hearing (People v. Blay, supra, A138380, at pp. 138–
139, 140–141), which it did.
After six days of testimony from 11 witnesses, including Blay and four
experts, and after both written and oral closing arguments, the court issued a
thorough 26-page decision in September 2022 on what it described as a “close
call,” concluding: “The People have met their burden under California Rule
of Court 5.7770(a) [sic] and established that [there should be a] transfer of
jurisdiction to criminal court jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence.”
Blay appeals that decision, not because of any alleged error but arguing the
2022 amendment to Welfare and Institutions Code section 707 entitles him to
a new juvenile transfer hearing. The People agree he is entitled to a new
hearing, and so do we. We independently review statutory interpretation and
application. (People v. Childs (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 1079, 1101.)
2
In September 2022 the Legislature amended the Arnold–Kennick
Juvenile Court Law (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 200 et seq.) in part to limit the
juvenile court’s power to transfer a minor to the criminal court for trial to
cases in which the juvenile court finds “by clear and convincing evidence that
the minor is not amenable to rehabilitation while under the jurisdiction of the
juvenile court.” (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 707, subd. (a)(3), amended by Stats.
2022, ch. 330, § 1, No. 5A Deering’s Adv. Legis. Service, p. 751, eff. Jan. 1,
2023; see Assem. Bill No. 2361 (2021–2022 Reg. Sess.) § 1.) At the time of
Blay’s juvenile transfer hearing, the burden of proof was lower: by a
preponderance of the evidence. (Conservatorship of O.B. (2020) 9 Cal.5th
989, 995 [clear and convincing evidence is a higher burden of proof].)3 We
agree with the parties that this amendment is an ameliorative change in the
law that applies retroactively to Blay and that he is entitled to a new juvenile
transfer hearing. (People v. Superior Court (Lara), supra, 4 Cal.5th at pp.
303, 308; see In re E.P. (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 409, 415–417 [Assem. Bill. No.
2361 applies retroactively], petn. for review filed Apr. 25, 2023, S279666;
In re T.A. (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 347, 351–352 [same], petn. for review filed
Apr. 24, 2023, S279635.) We express no opinion on what the hearing’s
outcome should be.4
3 The Juvenile Rules (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.500 et seq.) still reflect
the prior, lower burden of proof. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.770(a).)
4 “[T]he . . . remedy we recognize today does not allow [Blay] to raise
claims unrelated to his sentence. . . . He must receive a transfer hearing in a
juvenile court, where the court will decide whether criminal adjudication is
appropriate . . . . Whatever potential that hearing may have for reducing his
punishment (the nonfinal part of his judgment), it does not authorize . . .
relitigation of guilt.” (People v. Padilla, supra, 13 Cal.5th at pp. 169–170.)
3
DISPOSITION
The Marin Superior Court’s order of September 27, 2022, is reversed,
and the matter is remanded with directions to refer the case to the juvenile
court for a hearing on whether it would have transferred the case to the
criminal court applying the current law. If the juvenile court determines it
would not have transferred the case to the criminal court applying the
current law, it shall treat Blay’s convictions as juvenile adjudications and
order an appropriate disposition. If the juvenile court determines it would
have transferred the case to the criminal court applying the current law, it
shall transfer the case to the criminal court, and Blay’s convictions shall be
reinstated as of that date.
_________________________
Jackson, P. J.
WE CONCUR:
_________________________
Simons, J.
_________________________
Langhorne, J.*
A166315/People v. Deandre Maurice Blay
Judge of the Superior Court of Napa County, assigned by the Chief
*
Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.
4