P. v. Medina-Barragan CA1/5 filed 8/7/26

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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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,
v.
RODOLFO MEDINABARRAGAN,
Defendant and Appellant.

A173791

(San Mateo County
Super. Ct. No. SC083434A)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
When Rodolfo MedinaBarragan 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, hecontends 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 MedinaBarragan pleaded no contestto attempted murder andadmitted agang enhancement under the California Street Terrorism Enforcement and Prevention Act (Pen.Code, § 186.20 et seq.). (Pen. Code, §§ 187, subd. (a), 664, 667.5, subd. (c), 1192.7, subd. (c),186.22, subd. (b)(1)(C); Welf. & Inst. Code, § 707, subd. (d)(1); counts2–3.)After accepting his plea, the adult criminal court sentenced him to the negotiated prison term of 11 years4 months.
In 2024–2025, MedinaBarragan successfully petitioned the adult criminal court for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6. After the court grantedhis petition, defense counsel arguedhe 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 hearingonwhetherthe adult criminal courtor 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. InApril,defense counselcharacterizedthe hearing differently, as “on the merits of the issue of the redesignation of the offenses.” In June,the adult criminal court redesignated theconvictions 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 MedinaBarragan to five years in prison, already served.Whether the adult criminal court or the juvenile court should resentence him was not discussed or adjudicated on either date.MedinaBarragan 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; seePeople 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 MedinaBarragan 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, atpp. 169–170.)
Disposition
The judgment is conditionally reversed. The matter is remanded to the superior court with directions to refer the caseto the juvenile court for a 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 sentenceand 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 MedinaBarragan