Error and/or relief
For a crime committed when he was under age 18 and for which he was tried as an adult and sentenced to 46 years to life, the defendant filed a petition under section 1170(d) to recall his sentence and be resentenced, claiming he was sentenced to the functional equivalent of life without the possibility of parole (LWOP). The trial court denied the petition, concluding that the sentence was not the functional equivalent of LWOP. Reversed.
First Holding:
The issue regarding what sentences constitute the functional equivalent of LWOP is one the Supreme Court is set to resolve in Munoz.
Authority:
People v. Munoz (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 499, review granted June 25, 2025, S290828
Second Holding:
Defendant maintained he was eligible for resentencing even though he was not given an LWOP sentence because he was serving a sentence that was the functional equivalent of LWOP and treating him as if he were ineligible for resentencing would accordingly violate equal protection principles. We agree with Heard and other precedent that holds defendants who are serving the functional equivalent of LWOP, not just those serving an actual LWOP sentence, must be eligible for section 1170(d) relief pursuant to equal protection guarantees—and the availability of a youthful offender parole hearing does not undercut this conclusion.
Authority:
People v. Heard (2022) 83 Cal.App.5th 608, 628-629
People v. Contreras (2018) 4 Cal.5th 349
People v. Sorto (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 435, 440