Error and/or relief
In 2023, the defendant filed a petition for recall and resentencing under Penal Code section 1170(d). He was serving a sentence of more than 50 years to life for offenses committed when he was 14 and tried as an adult. We agree with the defendant that he adequately demonstrated he did not have prior juvenile felony adjudications for assault or other disqualifying felonies, contrary to the finding of the trial court. We agree that the prior offense was not adjudicated as a felony. Section 1170(d) requires that he satisfy at least one of the specified criteria, which he has. On that basis, we are compelled to reverse the order denying his petition for recall and resentencing.
First Holding:
In light of the ban against cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment, in 2013 the Legislature created a procedure for a juvenile offender sentenced to life without the possibility of parole (LWOP) to petition for a recall of the offender’s sentence and resentencing after the offender has served at least 15 years of the sentence.
Authority:
PEN 1170(d)
In re Kirchner (2017) 2 Cal.5th 1040, 1049
Graham v. Florida (2010) 560 U.S. 48
People v. Heard (2022) 83 Cal.App.5th 608, 622–626
Second Holding:
There is a conflict. Some courts have held that it violates the constitutional promise of equal protection of the laws to deny relief under the statute to juvenile offenders sentenced to lengthy terms of years amounting to the functional equivalent of LWOP. Other courts have concluded that section 3051 moots a juvenile defendant’s constitutional claim that he is serving a sentence that is the functional equivalent of LWOP.
Authority:
People v. Sorto (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 435, 450–454
People v. Bagsby (2024) 106 Cal.App.5th 1040, 1054–1061
People v. Cabrera (2025) 111 Cal.App.5th 650, 653
People v. Ortega (2025) 111 Cal.App.5th 1252, 1260
People v. Isayev (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 1117, 1123
Third Holding:
We apply the substantial evidence standard of review when considering disputed findings of fact made by trial courts. Under that standard of review, we review the record in the light most favorable to the order to determine whether the order is supported by substantial evidence. Substantial evidence is evidence that is of ponderable legal significance, reasonable in nature, credible, and of solid value, and substantial proof of the essentials which the law requires in a particular case.
Authority:
People v. Munoz (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 499, 506–507
People v. Harring (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 483, 495
People v. James (1985) 176 Cal.App.3d 795, 798
Conservatorship of O.B. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 989, 1006
Fourth Holding:
Insofar as the defendant’s claims require us to interpret section 1170(d), they present questions of statutory construction subject to de novo review. Statutory construction begins with the plain, commonsense meaning of the words in the statute, because it is generally the most reliable indicator of legislative intent and purpose. A statute is not to be read in isolation, but construed in context and with reference to the whole system of law of which it is a part so that all may be harmonized and have effect. If there is no ambiguity or uncertainty in the language, the Legislature is presumed to have meant what it said, and we need not resort to legislative history to determine the statute’s true meaning.
Authority:
People v. Munoz (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 499, 506
People v. Harring (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 483, 495
People v. Heard (2022) 83 Cal.App.5th 608, 622–623
Fifth Holding:
Penal Code section 1170(d) states that, when the defendant seeks relief under that section, the petition shall include the defendant’s statement that the defendant was under 18 years of age at the time of the crime and was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole, the defendant’s statement describing their remorse and work towards rehabilitation, and the defendant’s statement that one of the following is true: (A) The defendant was convicted pursuant to felony murder or aiding and abetting murder provisions of law; (B) The defendant does not have juvenile felony adjudications for assault or other felony crimes with a significant potential for personal harm to victims prior to the offense for which the sentence is being considered for recall; (C) The defendant committed the offense with at least one adult codefendant; (D) The defendant has performed acts that tend to indicate rehabilitation or the potential for rehabilitation, including, but not limited to, availing themselves of rehabilitative, educational, or vocational programs, if those programs have been available at their classification level and facility, using self-study for self-improvement, or showing evidence of remorse.
Authority:
PEN 1170(d)
