Error and/or relief
Tried as an adult for murder in 2008, the defendant was sentenced to 47 years to life in prison. The trial court denied his recently filed (2024) motion for resentencing under section 1170(d), believing the defendant was categorically ineligible for resentencing because he did not receive an actual LWOP sentence and the 47 years to life sentence he did receive was not long enough to qualify as the functional equivalent of LWOP. We hold, having given defendant’s circumstances individualized consideration, that defendant is eligible for resentencing because he is serving a sentence that constitutes the functional equivalent of LWOP.
First Holding:
When a defendant who was under 18 years of age at the time of the commission of the offense for which the defendant was sentenced to imprisonment for life without the possibility of parole has been incarcerated for at least 15 years, the defendant may submit to the sentencing court a petition for recall and resentencing.
Authority:
PEN 1170(d)
Second Holding:
We conclude that defendants who are serving the functional equivalent of LWOP, not just those serving an actual LWOP sentence, are eligible for section 1170(d) relief.
Authority:
People v. Heard (2022) 83 Cal.App.5th 608 [GARY NOTE: 23 years plus 80 years to life]
People v. Sorto (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 435 [GARY NOTE: 10 years plus 130 years to life]
People v. Contreras (2018) 4 Cal.5th 349, 356, 369 [holding sentences of 50 and 58 years to life imposed on two defendants who were 16 years old at the time of their kidnapping and sex offenses were functionally equivalent to LWOP and violated the Eighth Amendment]
Third Holding:
While the trial court rightly identified the line drawing problems this question raises given the current state of the law, lines must still be drawn. They need not be drawn entirely in the abstract, however. Instead, guided by our consideration of defendant’s history and prospects—and by our Supreme Court’s observation that a sentence must give a juvenile “a realistic hope of release and a genuine opportunity to reintegrate into society” to be constitutional (Contreras, supra, 4 Cal.5th at 373)—we hold defendant is serving a sentence that is the functional equivalent of LWOP and among those who are not categorically ineligible for relief under section 1170(d).
Authority:
People v. Contreras (2018) 4 Cal.5th 349, 373
Fourth Holding:
This question is pending in the Supreme Court. Acknowledging our Supreme Court will have the final word, we hold, having given defendant’s circumstances individualized consideration, that defendant is eligible for resentencing because he is serving a sentence that constitutes the functional equivalent of LWOP.
Authority:
People v. Munoz (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 499, review granted June 25, 2025, S290828