Yes, but only if the juvenile adjudication meets all four conditions in California’s Three Strikes statutes. The person must have been at least 16 when the prior offense was committed; the offense alleged as a strike must fall within the specified section 707(b) or serious or violent felony categories; the person must have been found fit for juvenile court; and, in that same juvenile proceeding, must have been made a ward under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 because of a section 707(b) offense. Age 16 alone is not enough. (Penal Code §§ 667(d)(3), 1170.12(b)(3))
Check the four conditions against the juvenile file
Age at the act. The statutes ask whether the person was 16 or older when the alleged prior offense happened. Being 16 at the hearing or disposition does not answer that question. Compare the date of birth with the offense date on the juvenile petition and any amended petition. (Penal Code § 667(d)(3)(A))
The offense alleged as a strike. The sustained juvenile offense must be listed in Welfare and Institutions Code section 707(b) or be a serious or violent felony under the categories cross-referenced by the Three Strikes law. The charge originally alleged may differ from what the juvenile court actually sustained. Identify the specific sustained count and the statute that applied, rather than relying on a shorthand description in the new adult charging document. (Penal Code § 667(d)(3)(B); Welfare and Institutions Code § 707(b))
Fitness for juvenile court. The law also requires that the person was found fit and proper to be dealt with under juvenile court law. Review the transfer or fitness history of the proceeding that produced the adjudication. The absence of a document headed “fitness finding” does not automatically defeat a strike allegation; the California Supreme Court has recognized that the finding need not always be express. (Penal Code § 667(d)(3)(C); People v. Garcia, 21 Cal.4th 1 (1999))
Wardship for a section 707(b) offense. In the same juvenile proceeding that produced the adjudication now alleged as a strike, the court must have adjudged the person a ward under section 602 because of an offense listed in section 707(b). A petition, arrest, sustained count, or a wardship order from some other proceeding does not alone show this condition. Find the actual disposition and wardship order and match it to the sustained offenses. (Penal Code § 667(d)(3)(D); Welfare and Institutions Code § 602)
The wardship offense can be different from the alleged strike offense
This is the easy part to miss. In People v. Garcia, the California Supreme Court held that the offense alleged as a strike may be a serious or violent felony even if it is not itself on the section 707(b) list. The fourth condition can still be met if a different section 707(b) offense caused wardship in that same juvenile proceeding. Conversely, the residential-burglary adjudication in Garcia failed the fourth condition because the proceeding had no section 707(b)-based wardship. The point is to inspect the whole proceeding, not just one offense label.
The relevant lists can change over time. Penal Code section 667(h) says its cross-references in subdivisions (c) through (g) use statutes as they existed on November 7, 2012. Because the current section 707(b) list has since been amended, a lawyer should check the version governing the allegation and the actual offense and proceeding dates before concluding that a historical adjudication qualifies or fails. (Penal Code § 667(h); Welfare and Institutions Code § 707)
What should counsel compare in the adult case?
Gather the adult charging document that alleges the prior, the juvenile petition and amendments, the record of sustained findings or admissions, any fitness or transfer ruling, and the disposition and wardship orders. Match the case number, offense date, specific offense, and proceeding on each record. California requires an alleged prior to be pleaded and proved in the adult case; an allegation in a complaint does not settle the four-condition test. (Penal Code § 667(f))
The fact that a juvenile hearing had no jury is not, by itself, a categorical reason to reject an otherwise qualifying prior. The California Supreme Court rejected that argument in People v. Nguyen, 46 Cal.4th 1007 (2009). Whether this particular prior qualifies still depends on the statute and records. If it qualifies, counsel can separately assess a request for the court to exercise discretion to dismiss the strike. That request differs from showing that the statutory conditions were never met.
For a review of the alleged prior alongside the current felony charge, contact the Law Offices of David S. Chesley’s Three Strikes defense practice at (800) 755-5174.