Earlier this week, the California Court of Appeals ruled that a juvenile who was tried and sentenced as an adult is entitled to a reexamination to see if he should have been tried as a juvenile instead.

In June 2009, two Rialto teenagers were charged with the murder of 28-year-old Montoyea Montez Smith. One of the shooters, Harquan Johnson, was 17 when he committed the murder. Although he was a teenager, he was charged as an adult. Following his trial, Johnson was sentenced to a term of 90 years to life in state prison.

Johnson's sentence is back in the news as a California appeals court is looking into whether or not Johnson should have been tried as an adult. In 2016, California passed Proposition 57. This new proposition requires that judges in the juvenile court system are the ones who should decide whether or not an offender who is a minor should be charged in the adult court system. Before the proposition was introduced, it was prosecutors who had the say in whether a case against a minor was filed in juvenile or adult court.

According to the California courts, Proposition 57 can also be applied retroactively and in the case of Johnson's hearing and sentencing, the California Court of Appeals deemed it appropriate to take a look at whether or not Johnson should have been tried as an adult. The Court held in part,

“In conducting the transfer hearing, the juvenile court shall treat the matter as though the prosecutor had originally filed a juvenile petition in juvenile court and had then moved to transfer Johnson’s cause to a court of criminal jurisdiction. If, after conducting the juvenile transfer hearing, the court determines that Johnson is ‘not a fit and proper subject to be dealt with under the juvenile court law,’ then Johnson’s convictions and sentence are to be reinstated. On the other hand, if the juvenile court finds that it would not have transferred Johnson to adult court, it shall treat his convictions as juvenile adjudications and impose an appropriate ‘disposition’ within its discretion.”

Additionally, the court of appeals stated that although the juvenile courts will need to determine whether or not Johnson should have been tried as an adult, it does not mean that Johnson will be entitled to a resentencing hearing. However, he could be entitled to an early parole hearing that would take place before his sentence is complete. During his early parole hearing, Johnson can file for a chance at early release.

Proposition 57 Faces Mixed Criticism

The main mission behind Proposition 57 is to keep imprisonment rates in the state low by rehabilitating juvenile offenders instead of trying them as adults and sentencing them to state prisons. Unlike the adult court system, the juvenile court system puts a greater emphasis on rehabilitation instead of punishment.

While Proposition 57 mainly focuses on juveniles, it does provide adult prisoners eligible for parole hearings with the opportunity to have their parole hearing take place earlier than scheduled. By allowing non-violent offenders to participate in earlier parole hearings, the goal is to help alleviate some of the stress brought on by overcrowding in the current prison system.

Proposition 57 has been met with both opposition and acceptance in the state. In arguments against Proposition 57, advocates have expressed their displeasure by stating,

“Proposition 57 will allow criminals convicted of rape, lewd acts against a child, gang gun crimes, and human trafficking to be released early from prison. The authors of Proposition 57 claim it only applies to 'non-violent' crimes, but their poorly drafted measure deems the following crimes 'non-'violent' and makes the perpetrators eligible for early parole and release into local communities: Rape by intoxication, rape of an unconscious person, human trafficking involving sex act with minors, domestic violence involving trauma...(Partial list)."

Proponents of the proposition express, “Proposition 57 saves tens of millions of taxpayer dollars by reducing wasteful prison spending, breaks the cycle of crime by rehabilitating deserving juvenile and adult inmates, and keeps dangerous criminals behind bars.”

Additionally, proponents argue that the proposition will help in the long run through its emphasis on rehabilitation. Proponents in favor explain that the proposition will not authorize parole for violent offenders, that it does not take away the rights of a victim, and that it will not keep judges from imposing harsh sentences. Instead, the proposition focuses on rehabilitating those who can integrate back into society while keeping dangerous criminals behind bars.