6DCA Oral Argument - 2025/11/06 - Nov 06, 2025

argument

6DCA Oral Argument - 2025/11/06

California Sixth District Court of Appeal 1h 28m 2 speakers 8 chapters transcribed 7 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What procedural announcements and technology updates does the court provide at the start of the session?

Julie Collector 0:10

Mr. Beaver, you can turn your camera and microphone on. We'll be getting started shortly.

Unknown 0:18

Thank you.

Hector Rodriguez 2:15

All right, the corporal appeal for the 6th of Thaw District is now in session. Presiding Justice the Ottawa Manor Kerry Greenwood, Associate Justice of the Ottawa Al Scarlman, and Associate

Unknown 2:24

Justice of the Ottawa Daniel Chief Albert.

Ann Timmer 2:35

Please be seated. Welcome to the sixth district court of appeal for oral argument this morning. We have four matters on calendar today and we will be taking them in order. There will be panel changes. Um, as we get situated here, I have um just a couple of announcements for you. One is that it's our pleasure to uh provide remote access uh to attorneys and self represented litigants who request it for oral argument. Um for those of you who are Appearing at council table, uh, you will be able to both see and hear whoever is appearing remotely. The first case is one of those. For those who are sitting in the audience, you'll be able to hear everything but not see everything. If you want a a visual experience along with the auditory experience, you're welcome to step into the waiting room where we have live streaming.

Ann Timmer 3:26

You should also be aware that all oral arguments are archived almost immediately after uh the oral argument session or shortly after the oral argument session and you would be able to both see and hear the arguments there. Um since I am talking about technology, the justices have access to our laptops here up on the bench. So we have our notes, our The briefs, the record, anything that we might need in the case. So if you see us looking off to the right or to the left Um that's what we're referencing here. Give me just a moment to be situated and uh we will start the calendar.

Ann Timmer 4:28

First matter on calendars is is N uh Inra MR, a person coming under the juvenile court law, people versus plaintiff and respondent versus MR defendant and appellant. If I could have a Pellants appearance first, please. Hmm.

Julie Collector 4:44

Good morning. May it please the court, Julie Collector on behalf of Appellant M R, who I'll refer to by his first name of Max.

Ann Timmer 4:51

All right, thank you very much. Uh and appearing for the Attorney General's office this morning.

Arthur Beaver 4:57

Good morning, Your Honor. Arthur Beaver, for respondent.

Ann Timmer 5:00

Right. And confirming your time estimate, Mr. Beaver, ten minutes. Was that what you were indicating?

Arthur Beaver 5:04

Yes, no more than ten minutes, Your Honor.

Ann Timmer 5:06

All right, and Miss Uh Uh uh is it Caleka? Caleka. Caleka, Ms. Caleka. Uh ten and five. Yes. All right, thank you very much. We're interested to hear your comments today, you may proceed. Thank you.

Julie Collector 5:18

This is an appeal of a juvenile transfer to adult criminal court pursuant to Welfare Institutions Code Section seven hundred seven subdivision A. seven oh seven specifies five criteria to be considered when determining whether a juvenile offender shall be transferred to adult criminal court. This appeal essentially focuses on the court's analysis in evaluating the second criteria. And that is whether Max can be rehabilitated prior to the expiration of the juvenile court's jurisdiction. It's Max's contention that in evaluating this criterion the juvenile court considered an irrelevant or impermissible factor. And that is whether the structure and programming that would be available to Max in the adult prison system.

Julie Collector 6:03

Would be better suited for Max's rehabilitative needs. Here the juvenile court considered testimony by a former CDCR warden who has never worked in a juvenile facility. He doesn't have any personal knowledge about Max or his case. The warden's testimony focused solely on the structure and programs that are available under the Youthful Offender Program in State Prison and how purportedly successful those programs have been. Expressly relying on this testimony. Did you

Ann Timmer 6:36

I'm gonna stop you for one minute. Um, mister Beaver, can I ask a favor? Can you put yourself on mute? We're hearing you turn your pages. Thank you.

Arthur Beaver 6:43

I'm so sorry.

Ann Timmer 6:44

That's all right. Just wanted to make sure we get the the full uh The

Julie Collector 6:47

full experience here. You go ahead. Thank you. Expressly relying on this testimony, the juvenile court determined that the second criteria weighed in favor of transfer, and this was based in large part on the structure and programming that the prison warden had talked about.