11/14/2020 People v.

Michael Y, G057806 | Casetext

8 days left in your free trial Deal: 20% off if you purchase by Saturday 11/21. Subscribe Now
1

CARA A.I. "cheri" "pham" JX § AN

2
Results People v. Michael Y. Copy Cite

Read Analyses 0 Briefs 0 Citing Cases 0

People v. Michael Y.
COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE Jun 16, 2020

G057806 (Cal. Ct. App. Jun. 16, 2020)

G057806

06-16-2020

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. MICHAEL Y., Defendant and Respondent.

Todd Spitzer, District Attorney, and Holly M. Woesner, Deputy District Attorney, for
Plaintiff and Appellant. Allen G. Weinberg, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for
Defendant and Respondent.

BEDSWORTH, J.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or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. (Super. Ct. No. 97CF0113) OPINION
Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Gregg Prickett, Judge.
Dismissed. Todd Spitzer, District Attorney, and Holly M. Woesner, Deputy District
Attorney, for Plaintiff and Appellant. Allen G. Weinberg, under appointment by the Court
2 of Appeal, for Defendant and Respondent. *2

The District Attorney of Orange County appeals a superior court order remanding this case
to the juvenile court for a Proposition 57 transfer hearing. However, as the district attorney
concedes, recent events have rendered his challenge to the order moot. We therefore dismiss
his appeal.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On October 6, 1996, respondent Michael Y. fatally shot a rival gang member during a
confrontation in San Clemente. At the time of the shooting, Michael Y. was 17 years old,
but the district attorney directly charged him as an adult in superior court. A jury convicted
Michael Y. of special circumstances murder in the first degree and street terrorism. It also
found true allegations he had committed the murder with a firearm and for the benefit of a
criminal street gang. The trial court sentenced him to life in prison without parole (LWOP),
plus 10 years.

We affirmed the judgment on appeal. (People v. Mendoza, et al. (Mar. 31, 2000, G024022)
[nonpub. opn.].) The California Supreme Court denied Michael Y.'s petition for review, and
he did not seek a writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court within 90 days of our

https://casetext.com/case/people-v-michael-y?q="cheri" "pham" &p=1&tab=keyword&jxs=ca&sort=date-descending&type=case#pa12 1/3

11/14/2020 People v. Michael Y, G057806 | Casetext

remittitur
8 days left in your free trial order. Therefore, theDeal:
judgment
20% off ifbecame finalbythe
you purchase next court
Saturday 11/21. day, which was Subscribe Now

January 2, 2001. 1

CARA A.I. "cheri" "pham" JX § AN

Fifteen years later, on April 12, 2016, Michael Y. filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus
in the superior court. He allegedPeople
his sentence was cruel andCite
unusual under Miller v.
2
Results v. Michael Y. Copy
Alabama (2012) 567 U.S. 460, which held mandatory LWOP sentences for juvenile
Read Analyses 0 Briefs 0 Citing Cases 0
homicide offenders violate the Eight Amendment. The prosecution conceded Michael Y.'s
sentence was suspect under Miller because the sentencing judge did not consider the special
attributes of youth in sentencing him to LWOP. Accordingly, Superior Court Judge Cheri
Pham granted the habeas petition. While not disturbing Michael Y.'s underlying
3 convictions, Judge Pham vacated his sentence and set the matter for resentencing. *3

Judge Gregg Prickett was assigned to conduct the resentencing hearing. While the hearing
was pending, Michael Y. moved to have the matter remanded to the juvenile court to
conduct a transfer hearing pursuant to Proposition 57, which became effective November 9,
2016. "[T]he intent of the electorate in approving Proposition 57 was to broaden the number
of minors who could potentially stay within the juvenile justice system, with its primary
emphasis on rehabilitation rather than punishment." (People v. Vela (2018) 21 Cal.App.5th
1099, 1107.) To that end, the measure prohibits the direct filing of juvenile cases in adult
court and requires a judicial finding the minor is unfit for treatment in juvenile court before
his case can be transferred to superior court. (Id. at p. 1106-1107; Welf. & Inst. Code, §
707.)

In his remand motion, Michael Y. argued he was entitled to the benefit of Proposition 57
because he was a minor at the time of his offenses, and his sentence for those crimes had
been vacated in the habeas proceeding. Over the prosecution's objection, Judge Prickett
granted Michael Y.'s motion and remanded the matter to the juvenile court for a transfer
hearing.

The district attorney has appealed from that order. He claims Michael Y. is not entitled to
the benefit of Proposition 57 because his case was already final when the measure became
effective. Michael Y. disagrees with that claim. He also asserts the appeal should be
dismissed on the basis the superior court's remand order is nonappealable. As it turns out,
we need not decide these issues because, as explained below, the district attorney's
challenge to the order has become moot by virtue of events that have transpired during the
pendency of his appeal.

DISCUSSION
This case was scheduled for oral argument in our court on April 24, 2020. On March 19, we
received a letter from Michael Y.'s appellate attorney advising us the district attorney
recently withdrew his request for a transfer hearing and assented to the juvenile court's
4 decision to declare Michael Y. a ward of the court, close his adult case, *4 and release him
from custody.1 Counsel maintained these events rendered the district attorney's appeal moot
because there was nothing left to be done, or to resolve, in Michael Y.'s case.
1 Michael Y.'s attorney provided verification of these events in the form of a superior court

minute order dated March 6, 2020, which we judicially notice. (Evid. Code, §§ 459, subd. (a),
452, subd. (d).) --------

We invited the district attorney to respond to counsel's letter, which he did on April 1.
Given the events described in the letter, the district attorney concedes his challenge to the
superior court's remand order is now moot. Indeed, seeing that the district attorney did not
object to Michael Y. being treated as a juvenile offender and released from custody, there is
no reason to determine the legality of the ruling that paved the way for those orders. (See
generally People v. Alsafar (2017) 8 Cal.App.5th 880, 886 [under the mootness doctrine,

https://casetext.com/case/people-v-michael-y?q="cheri" "pham" &p=1&tab=keyword&jxs=ca&sort=date-descending&type=case#pa12 2/3

11/14/2020 People v. Michael Y, G057806 | Casetext

courts
8 days left in your free trial should only decide actual controversies
Deal: and refrain
20% off if you purchase from 11/21.
by Saturday considering abstract issues Subscribe Now

that will no longer have any practical effect on the outcome of the case].) We therefore 1

accept CARA A.I.

the district "cheri" "pham"
attorney's concession and dismiss his appeal as moot. JX § AN

DISPOSITION
2
Results People v. Michael Y. Copy Cite

5 The appeal
Read is dismissed.
Analyses 0 *5Briefs 0 Citing Cases 0

BEDSWORTH, J. WE CONCUR: O'LEARY, P. J. THOMPSON, J.

Make your practice more Pricing About us

effective and efficient with
Switch Jobs
Casetext’s legal research
suite. Big firm Blog

Coverage Podcast
Get a Demo SmartCite News

Public records Twitter

Partnerships and Resources Facebook

Law school LinkedIn

Bar associations Instagram

Help articles

Customer support

Contact sales

Privacy

Terms

© 2020 Casetext Inc.

Casetext, Inc. and Casetext are not a law firm and do not provide legal advice.

https://casetext.com/case/people-v-michael-y?q="cheri" "pham" &p=1&tab=keyword&jxs=ca&sort=date-descending&type=case#pa12 3/3