June 19, 2001

Attorneys for Charles "Andy" Williams asked an appeals court yesterday to reverse a judge's ruling that the youth can face charges as an adult in the Santana High School shootings.

The filing with the 4th District Court of Appeal contends Proposition 21, passed by voters in March 2000, is unconstitutional because it violates the state's single-subject rule.

That rule says propositions can cover only one subject area. Williams' attorneys argue that the sweeping measure is a "smorgasbord" of disparate pieces.

Coverage of the Santana High School shooting Read or post comments in our Santana High School shooting forum

They raised the argument unsuccessfully in April, when Superior Court Judge Herbert Exarhos ruled Proposition 21 constitutional. The measure, among other things, gave prosecutors the power to decide which juvenile cases aretried in adult court.

Williams, 15, is accused of firing on the Santee campus the morning of March 5. Students Bryan Zuckor, 14, and Randy Gordon, 17, were killed, and 13 people were injured.

Williams is charged with two counts of murder and several counts of attempted murder and assault with a firearm. Under another provision of Proposition 21, prosecutors were required to file the charges in adult court instead of Juvenile Court.

A preliminary hearing, in which prosecutors would unveil some of the evidence against Williams, is scheduled for next month, but the filing with the Court of Appeal will likely postpone that hearing, perhaps for months.

In their papers, the attorneys argue the proposition covers three distinct areas -- gang-related crimes, changes in sentences for adult offenders and revisions to the juvenile justice system.

They also argue the initiative generated voter confusion because it did not "adequately inform the electorate" about the changes it would make in a wide array of existing laws.

They also contend the initiative illegally takes power away from judges and hands it to prosecutors by giving prosecutors the power to charge youths as adults.

Before Proposition 21, a juvenile court judge determined after a hearing if a youth should be tried in adult court, where sentences are much harsher.

That reallocation of power is also an issue in another San Diego Proposition 21 case before the state Supreme Court concerning eight Rancho Peñasquitos teen-agers charged with assaulting migrant workers.

Attorneys for those youths successfully argued to the same appeals court that the law gives prosecutors too much power. However, the Rancho Peñasquitos teens were charged under a provision of the law giving prosecutors discretion to file a case in adult court or in juvenile court.

By contrast, Williams is charged under another provision of the law mandating that youths charged with murder, personally using a weapon and facing one or more special charges be tried in adult court. Prosecutors have no discretion in those cases.

The Supreme Court, in accepting the case of the Rancho Peñasquitos youths, said it would look at all issues related to Proposition 21. No date for that hearing has been set.

In their filing yesterday, Williams' attorneys ask that the court reverse Exarhos' decision and issue an order dismissing the charges against Williams.