Filed 8/7/26 P. v. Medina-Barragan 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or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, A173791
v.
RODOLFO MEDINA-BARRAGAN, (San Mateo County
Defendant and Appellant. Super. Ct. No. SC083434A)
MEMORANDUM OPINION1
When Rodolfo Medina-Barragan was 16 years old, he attempted to
murder two people, for which he was convicted in adult criminal court in
2015. After a successful petition for resentencing in 2025, he contends he is
entitled to a juvenile court transfer hearing, which he did not get. The People
agree, and so do we.
BACKGROUND
Per a negotiated disposition in the San Mateo Superior Court, in 2015
Medina-Barragan pleaded no contest to attempted murder and admitted a
gang enhancement under the California Street Terrorism Enforcement and
Prevention Act (Pen. Code, § 186.20 et seq.). (Pen. Code, §§ 187, subd. (a),
1 Cal. Stds. Jud. Admin., § 8.1; Ct. App., First Dist., Local Rules of Ct.,
rule 19.
1
664, 667.5, subd. (c), 1192.7, subd. (c), 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(C); Welf. & Inst.
Code, § 707, subd. (d)(1); counts 2–3.) After accepting his plea, the adult
criminal court sentenced him to the negotiated prison term of 11 years
4 months.2
In 2024–2025, Medina-Barragan successfully petitioned the adult
criminal court for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6. After the
court granted his petition, defense counsel argued he was entitled to a
juvenile court transfer hearing because he was 16 years old when he
committed his crimes. The court then set a future hearing on whether the
adult criminal court or the juvenile court should resentence him, specifically:
“That [hearing] is just for a decision . . . whether you have to go back to
juvenile court and litigate the issue of whether is it transferred [sic] to adult
court. If the decision is he is transferred to the adult court, then one of the
adult judges handles resentencing. If he is certified to stay in [the] juvenile
court, then one of the juvenile judges handles resentencing. [¶] Is that how
you both look at the issue?” Counsel for each side confirmed, “Yes.”
The hearing spanned two dates, April 22, 2025, and June 26, 2025.
In April, defense counsel characterized the hearing differently, as “on the
merits of the issue of the redesignation of the offenses.” In June, the adult
criminal court redesignated the convictions as for shooting at an inhabited
dwelling (Pen. Code, §§ 246, 1192.7, subd. (c), 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(C);
counts 2–3) and resentenced Medina-Barragan to five years in prison,
2 Ten other felony charges and gang and other enhancements were
dismissed: attempted murder (Pen. Code, §§ 187, subd. (a), 664, 186.22,
subd. (b)(5), 12022.53, subd. (e); counts 1, 4); shooting at an inhabited
dwelling (Pen. Code, §§ 246, 186.22, subd. (b)(4), 12022.53, subd. (e);
counts 5–11); and active participation in a criminal street gang (Pen. Code,
§ 186.22, subd. (a); count 12).
2
already served. Whether the adult criminal court or the juvenile court should
resentence him was not discussed or adjudicated on either date.
Medina-Barragan timely appealed, contending he remains entitled to a
juvenile court transfer hearing, which the People concede.
DISCUSSION
In 2016, voters passed “The Public Safety and Rehabilitation Act of
2016” (see Off. Voter Information Guide, Gen. Elec. (Nov. 8, 2016), text of
Prop. 57, § 1, p. 141), amending the Arnold–Kennick Juvenile Court law
(Welf. & Inst. Code, § 200 et seq.) to obligate the People to criminally charge
a minor in the 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].) This part of the act applies retroactively to nonfinal
judgments. (People v. Superior Court (Lara), at pp. 303–304; accord, People v.
Padilla (2022) 13 Cal.5th 152, 158, 167.) When a court vacates a criminal
sentence after a successful petition for resentencing, it reacquires jurisdiction
to reimpose punishment and the judgment reverts to being nonfinal for that
purpose. (People v. Padilla, at pp. 161–162.) The parties agree
Medina-Barragan is entitled to a juvenile court transfer hearing, and for
these reasons so do we. But we emphasize: “Whatever potential that hearing
may have for reducing his punishment (the nonfinal part of his judgment), it
does not authorize or constitute relitigation of guilt.” (People v. Padilla,
at pp. 169–170.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is conditionally reversed. The matter is remanded to the
superior court with directions to refer the case to the juvenile court for a
3
transfer hearing to determine if the juvenile court would have transferred the
case to the adult criminal court if the case had originally been filed in the
juvenile court in accordance with current law.
If the juvenile court determines it would not have transferred the case
to the adult criminal court under current law, it shall treat defendant’s
convictions as juvenile adjudications as of the date defendant was convicted
and impose an appropriate disposition.
If the juvenile court determines it would have transferred the case to
the adult criminal court under current law, it shall transfer the case to the
adult criminal court, which shall then reinstate defendant’s sentence and
forward a certified copy of the abstract of judgment to the Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation.
Jackson, P. J.
WE CONCUR:
Simons, J.
Burns, J.
A173791/People v. Rodolfo Medina-Barragan
4