Filed 9/8/26 In re A.J. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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 A.J., a Person Coming Under the
Juvenile Court Law.
THE PEOPLE,
E087472
Plaintiff and Respondent,
(Super.Ct.No. J279463)
v.
OPINION
A.J.,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. David E. Driscoll,
Judge. Affirmed.
Jeanine G. Strong, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
After remand from this court on appeal from a Welfare and Institutions Code
section 707 transfer order, the juvenile court again granted plaintiff and respondent, the
1
People’s, motion to transfer defendant and appellant, A.J. (defendant),1 from the
jurisdiction of the juvenile court to that of the criminal court.
After counsel for defendant filed a notice of appeal, this court appointed counsel to
represent him. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979)
25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, setting forth a statement of
the case and identifying one potentially arguable issue: whether the court abused its
discretion in finding that the People had proven by clear and convincing evidence that
defendant was not amenable to rehabilitation under the juvenile court’s jurisdiction. We
affirm.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND2
Beginning in 2019, defendant was subject to juvenile probation after sustaining a
violation of Penal Code section 601, subdivision (a), trespass by threat, a misdemeanor.
He violated his probation and picked up new misdemeanor offenses including vandalism
over $400 (Pen. Code, § 594, subd. (b)(1)) on June 24, 2019, and resisting, obstructing,
1 By order dated May 4, 2026, we incorporated the record in case No. E080078,
from defendant’s appeal of a previous transfer order, in the record in this case.
Although defendant was 16 years of age on the date the People alleged he
committed the offenses, he attained majority just over a month after the juvenile court
issued the original transfer order, well before the proceedings that are the subject of the
instant appeal.
2 It is assumed for purposes of a transfer hearing that minor committed the
charged offenses. (People v. Superior Court (Rodrigo O.) (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 1297,
1303 [“[T]he criteria the court must use to determine fitness are based upon the premise
that the minor did in fact commit the offense”]; accord, People v. Superior Court (Jones)
(1998) 18 Cal.4th 667, 682; Rene C. v. Superior Court (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 1, 10
[“[T]he factors used to assess fitness presuppose that the minor committed the offense”];
Kevin P. v. Superior Court (2020) 57 Cal.App.5th 173, 189.)
2
or delaying a peace officer or emergency medical technician (Pen. Code, § 148, subd.
(a)(1)) on December 4, 2019. (In re A.J. (May 19, 2023, E080078) [nonpub. opn.] (A.J.
I).)
On December 29, 2020, four males got into an argument with the victim in front
of an apartment complex. The group left in a vehicle but returned and reengaged with the
victim. (A.J. I, supra, E080078.)
Defendant pulled out an AR-15 and fired approximately 10 shots at the victim.
One bullet went through the side of the apartment complex and struck a 12-year-old girl
in the arm. (A.J. I, supra, E080078.)
Defendant’s mother’s employment card was found at the scene, along with 12
fired cartridge casings. Police spoke to the driver of the vehicle, the person whom law
enforcement initially suspected was the shooter; he confirmed that defendant fired
multiple rounds from an AR-15. Defendant’s fingerprints were found on the rear door of
the driver’s side of the vehicle. Defendant fled the scene and was later arrested in Las
Vegas while in the possession of a firearm; defendant was extradited to California in
February 2021. (A.J. I, supra, E080078.)
On March 11, 2021, the People filed a wardship petition (Welf. & Inst. Code,
§ 602, subd. (a)) alleging that defendant committed attempted murder (Pen. Code,
§§ 664, 187, subd. (a)), assault with a firearm (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(2)), assault by
means likely to produce great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(4)), shooting at
an inhabited dwelling (Pen. Code, § 246), and possession of a firearm by a minor (Pen.
3
Code, § 29610). The People requested a transfer hearing under Welfare and Institutions
Code former section 707. (A.J. I, supra, E080078.)
The original transfer hearing was held over several days in July, August, and
October 2022. After considering all the evidence—exhibits and testimony—and
independently weighing the five factors set forth in Welfare and Institutions Code former
section 707, subdivision (a)(2)(A)-(E), the juvenile court ordered defendant transferred to
the jurisdiction of the criminal court. (A.J. I, supra, E080078.)
Defendant appealed, contending subsequent legislation raising the People’s burden
of proof from a preponderance of the evidence to clear and convincing evidence applied
retroactively and required reversal so the juvenile court could reconsider its ruling
considering the change enacted by Assembly Bill No. 2361 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.).
(Stats. 2022, ch. 330, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 2023.) We held that even applying the higher
burden of proof, it was not reasonably probable that the juvenile court would have
reached a different decision. Therefore, we affirmed the juvenile court’s transfer order.
(A.J. I, supra, E080078.)
By order dated August 9, 2023, the California Supreme Court transferred the
matter back to us with directions to vacate our decision and reconsider the cause in light
of In re F.M. (2023) 14 Cal.5th 701 and In re E.P. (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 409. We
vacated our decision and offered the parties the opportunity to file supplemental briefs.
(In re A.J. (Aug. 22, 2023, E080078) [nonpub. opn.] (A.J. II).)
4
Defendant requested the matter be remanded to the juvenile court with directions
to hold a new transfer hearing under current law. The People did not oppose a remand
under the circumstances. Thus, we reversed and remanded the matter with directions to
the superior court to reconsider the matter under the amended version of Welfare and
Institutions Code section 707 and in light of In re F.M., supra, 14 Cal.5th 701, 712-716
and In re E.P., supra, 89 Cal.App.5th 409, 416. (In re A.J. II, supra, E080078.)
Subsequently, a November 3, 2023, detention behavior summary reflected that
defendant had not had any behavioral issues since his last court date.
In a December 22, 2023, transfer memorandum, the probation officer commended
defendant, noting he “has displayed positive behavior on the unit and has been following
unit structure and programming with his peers without any issues. It appears [defendant]
has not had any major negative behaviors since August of 2023.”
Nonetheless, the officer opined defendant was “not amenable to rehabilitation
while under the jurisdiction of the Juvenile Court based on several criteria.” This was
because defendant had failed to take his grants of probation seriously, violated the terms
of his probation, engaged in increasingly sophisticated criminal behavior, had allegedly
participated as a principal in the “heinous” instant offenses, had fled law enforcement,
and lacked remorse.
In the March 11, 2024, detention behavior summary, staff noted, defendant
“attends school daily and completes his work without any issues. [Defendant] has
5
emerged as a positive leader on the unit and has expressed that he has learned a lot about
life and has a better understanding of what[] it takes to be a man and a father.”
In the April 5, 2024, summary, staff observed defendant “has demonstrated being
a positive influence while on the living unit. The [defendant] consistently completes unit
jobs, participates in positive group conversations and continually follows staff directives
on a daily basis.” Defendant “continues to make citizen of the month over [the] past few
months.”3
In the April 19, 2024, summary, staff again observed defendant “has demonstrated
being a positive influence while on the living unit. [He] consistently complete[s] unit
jobs, participates in positive group conversations and continually follows staff directives
on a daily basis.” Defendant “continue[s] to make citizen of the month over [the] past
few months.”
In the June 21, 2024, court memorandum, the probation officer noted she
“strongly believes [defendant] is not considered to be a suitable subject to be dealt with
under the jurisdiction of the Juvenile Delinquency Court.” In the June 28, 2024,
summary, the staff reported that defendant had participated in and completed several
programs.
In the April 3, 2025, court memorandum, the probation officer, yet again,
recommended the court find defendant ineligible for treatment in the juvenile court’s
jurisdiction and transfer the matter to criminal court.
3 In subsequent summaries dated March 28, 2025, and April 4, 2025, staff
described defendant in positive terms, both in behavior and school activities.
6
In a May 9, 2025, summary, it was reported that defendant was involved in a code
red, which required staff to pepper spray him. Staff reported that defendant had
“regressed. [Defendant] has displayed a positive attitude towards his peers, however he
has had a poor attitude towards staff.” In the June 13, 2025, summary, it was reported
that defendant had engaged in another code red; defendant “struck his peer in the face
with closed fists. [Defendant] kicked his peer in the face, ran from the area, returning
and kicking him in the face again. Staff attempted to place [defendant’s] hands behind
his back, however [defendant] resisted staff.”
On June 13, 2025, defendant requested to be transferred to county jail as an adult.
In the June 14, 2025, court memorandum, the probation officer recommended the court
transfer defendant to jail: Defendant’s “behavior appears to be escalating and his
ongoing defiance and physical assault on peers pose a danger to himself, the community,
other youth at the facility and staff. On the other hand, the county jail with its extensive
resources can provide for the safety of [defendant], inmates and staff alike. For these
reasons, it is respectfully recommended that the youth be removed from Central Valley
Juvenile Detention and Assessment Center and transferred to the San Bernardino County
Jail pending the outcome of his juvenile case.”
On July 10, 2025, the court noted it was going to proceed with the request for
transfer as uncontested. The parties agreed. The court transferred defendant to jail
pending the outcome of the Welfare and Institutions Code section 707 hearing.
7
In the October 21, 2025, court memorandum, the probation officer yet again
opined that defendant “is not considered to be a suitable subject to be dealt with under the
jurisdiction of the Juvenile Delinquency Court.”
On December 5, 2025, by judicial notice and stipulation of the parties, the court
noted that it had reviewed all the documents and testimony from the prior transfer
hearing. The court also reviewed, “The juvenile detention behavior summaries from
November 1, 2023[,] through June 13, 2025[.] [¶] The probation officer court
memorandum . . . dated December 20, 2023, June 19, 2024, March 31, 2025, June 14,
2025, and October 20, 20[2]5[.] [¶] The report of Marjorie Graham-Howard Ph.D. dated
April 6, 2024[,] [and] the jail order that’s dated June 13, 2025.”
The parties presented no new testimony. The People argued the court should find
defendant unamenable to rehabilitation under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court and
requested the court transfer the matter to the criminal court. Defense counsel argued
defendant was amenable to treatment under the juvenile court’s jurisdiction and requested
the court deny the People’s transfer request.
The court ruled that all five factors it was to consider under Welfare and
Institutions Code section 707 weighed in favor of transfer. Thus, the court found “by
clear and convincing evidence that the [defendant] is not amenable to rehabilitation while
under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court. Therefore, the [defendant] is ordered
transferred to the jurisdiction of the criminal court pursuant to California Rule of Court
Rule 5.770(d)(3).”
8
II. DISCUSSION
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, but he
has not done so. Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we
have independently reviewed the record for potential error and find no arguable issues.
(In re Kevin S. (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 97, 119 [“[T]he prophylactic rules in Anders and
therefore Wende apply to delinquency appeals”].)
III. DISPOSITION
The juvenile court’s order granting the People’s motion to transfer the matter to a
court of criminal jurisdiction is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
McKINSTER
Acting P. J.
We concur:
MILLER
J.
MENETREZ
J.
9