Error and/or relief
For criminal conduct committed when he was 17, the imposition of a sentence of a determinate term of nine years plus and indeterminate term of more than 150 years to life was the functional equivalent of a sentence of life without the possibility of parole (LWOP), and as a matter of equal protection, the defendant must be considered eligible to petition for recall and resentencing under section 1170(d)(1).
First Holding:
Statutory interpretation and the application of undisputed facts to a statute are questions of law we review de novo.
Authority:
People v. Salcido (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 1303, 1311
Second Holding:
A juvenile defendant who was sentenced to imprisonment for life without the possibility of parole is eligible to seek resentencing under section 1170(d). Although the defendant’s sentence does not fall within the statute’s plain language, the constitutional right of equal protection extends section 1170(d) eligibility to juvenile offenders who were sentenced to the functional equivalent of LWOP.
Authority:
PEN 1170(d)(1)(A)
People v. Heard (2022) 83 Cal.App.5th 608, 633–634
Third Holding:
The defendant’s sentence exceeds the sentence in Heard, and the People concede it unquestionably exceeds the juvenile offender’s natural lifespan.
Authority:
People v. Sorto (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 435, 440, 450–451 [10 years plus 130 years to life constituted functional equivalent of LWOP]
People v. Caballero (2012) 55 Cal.4th 262, 265, 267–268 [40 years plus 70 years to life]
Fourth Holding:
The defendant’s youth offender parole eligibility under section 3051 does not affect his eligibility to seek section 1170(d) resentencing because section 3051 relief became available only after his sentence was imposed. As relevant here, under section 3051, a youth offender sentenced to a life term of 25 years to life or more is eligible for parole after 25 years of incarceration. (PC 3051(b)(3).) Because section 1170(d)(1) refers to what the defendant was sentenced to, what matters is the defendant’s original sentence. We acknowledge that other courts have parted ways with Heard, but we do not.
Authority:
People v. Heard (2022) 83 Cal.App.5th 608, 629