Category Archives: Juveniles

Equal protection, Juveniles, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case: 000404

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

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

Juveniles, Sentencing, Sixth Amendment

Case: 000402

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court violated section 1170 and the defendant’s right to a jury trial by relying on aggravating factors that were not proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt or stipulated to under to section 1170(b). And the court must conduct a Franklin hearing.

First Holding:

On January 1, 2022, SB 567 went into effect, amending section 1170. Section 1170 now authorizes a trial court to impose a sentence exceeding the middle term only when there are circumstances in aggravation of the crime that justify the imposition of a term of imprisonment exceeding the middle term and the facts underlying those circumstances have been stipulated to by the defendant or have been found true beyond a reasonable doubt at trial by the jury or by the judge in a court trial. However, the court may consider the defendant’s prior convictions in determining sentencing based on a certified record of conviction without submitting the prior convictions to a jury.

Authority:

PEN 1170(b)(3)

Second Holding:

While not directly addressing section 1170, the United States Supreme Court held that, under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, virtually any fact that increases the prescribed range of penalties to which a criminal defendant is exposed must be resolved by a unanimous jury beyond a reasonable doubt or freely admitted in a guilty plea. An exception to this allows a trial court to find only the fact of a prior conviction. Under that exception, a judge may do no more, consistent with the Sixth Amendment, than determine what crime, with what elements, the defendant was convicted of.

Authority:

Erlinger v. United States (2024) 602 U.S. 821, 834, 838

Third Holding:

In accordance with Erlinger, Wiley held that a defendant is entitled to a jury trial on all aggravating facts, other than the bare fact of a prior conviction and its elements, that expose the defendant to imposition of a sentence more serious than the statutorily provided midterm. The court also addressed two specific aggravating factors specified in the Rules of Court–the increasing seriousness of a defendant’s prior convictions and a defendant’s unsatisfactory performance on probation or parole, and held that each must be found true by a jury before it can be used to justify an upper term sentence.

Authority:

Rules of Court rules 4.421(b)(2) and (b)(5)

People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1082-108

Fourth Holding:

When a defendant is deprived of a jury trial on aggravating facts used to justify imposition of an upper term sentence, the reviewing court must apply the Chapman standard of review. Under that standard, a sentence imposed under section 1170(b) must be reversed and remanded unless the reviewing court concludes beyond a reasonable doubt that a jury, applying that same standard, would have found true all of the aggravating facts upon which the court relied to conclude the upper term was justified, or that those facts were otherwise proved true in compliance with the current statute.

Authority:

People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1087

Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18

Fifth Holding:

In selecting the upper term on count 5, the trial court relied on the defendant’s extensive serious record. While the court did not refer to any specific aggravating factor, it appears the court relied on, at the very least, the increasing seriousness of his prior convictions or sustained juvenile petitions. However, a jury determination is required before a court can rely on this aggravating factor to justify an upper term sentence. Here, there was no jury trial, stipulation, or jury trial waiver on this factor in aggravation. Accordingly, the court’s reliance on this factor to impose an upper term sentence was error.

Authority:

People v. Wiley [(2025)] 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1090

Sixth Holding:

The determination of whether these prior convictions are of increasing seriousness is a comparative and qualitative one, which makes it difficult for a reviewing court to conclude with confidence that, had the issue been submitted to the jury, the jury would have assessed the facts in the same manner as did the trial court. A rational juror may not have been persuaded beyond a reasonable doubt. As we cannot conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that a jury would have found this aggravating factor true, the error was not harmless. As the trial court erred and the error was not harmless, we will vacate the sentence and remand the case for a full resentencing.

Authority:

People v. Wiley [(2025)] 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1087, 1090

People v. Buycks (2018) 5 Cal.5th 857, 893

Seventh Holding:

The trial court also misunderstand its responsibility to conduct a Franklin hearing itself, believing that it was a parole matter to be handled by the Parole Board. A Franklin proceeding gives an opportunity for the parties to make an accurate record of the juvenile offender’s characteristics and circumstances at the time of the offense so that the Parole] Board, years later, may properly discharge its obligation to give great weight to youth-related factors in determining whether the offender is fit to rejoin society. On remand, the court must conduct a Franklin hearing.

Authority:

In re Cook (2019) 7 Cal.5th 439, 449

People v. Franklin (2016) 63 Cal.4th 261

Effective assistance of counsel, Juveniles, Retroactivity, Sentencing

Case: 000400

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Where the defendant’s judgment was not final when Proposition 57 was passed (making major changes in the treatment of juvenile offenders as adults), and counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to seek application of Proposition 57 on appeal, the petition for writ of habeas corpus is granted, and the matter is remanded to the juvenile court to consider whether it would have transferred the case to the adult court for prosecution as an adult even under Proposition 57 (in which case, the conviction will be reinstated as of that date) or to instead proceed by juvenile adjudication (in which case the court must conduct a dispositional hearing).

First Holding:

Among other provisions, Proposition 57 amended the Welfare and Institutions Code so as to eliminate direct filing of criminal charges against a juvenile by prosecutors. Certain categories of minors can still be tried in criminal court, but only after a juvenile court judge conducts a transfer hearing to consider various factors such as the minor’s maturity, degree of criminal sophistication, prior delinquent history, and whether the minor can be rehabilitated. The provisions apply to every minor to whom it may constitutionally apply [i.e., it is retroactive to judgments that were not final prior to its passage].

Authority:

People v. Superior Ct. (Lara) (2018) 4 Cal.5th 299, 305-306

Second Holding:

Where a judgment that was final before Proposition 57 was passed is reopened, as when a sentence is vacated under habeas corpus, the judgment is no longer final and is subject to the provisions of Proposition 57.

Authority:

People v. Padilla (2022) 13 Cal.5th 152

Third Holding:

To establish constitutionally inadequate representation, the defendant must show that (1) counsel’s performance was deficient; and (2) the deficient performance prejudiced the defense. We defer to trial counsel’s reasonable tactical decisions in examining a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. If the record on appeal sheds no light on why counsel acted or failed to act in the manner challenged, an appellate claim of ineffective assistance of counsel must be rejected unless counsel was asked for an explanation and failed to provide one, or there simply could be no satisfactory explanation. In this instance, however, the defendant’s attorney submitted a declaration that she had no tactical reason for not raising Proposition 57 on direct appeal demonstrates constitutional ineffective assistance of counsel under the standard set forth above. The defendant was prejudiced by the failure to raise the Proposition 57 issue earlier, because it provides ameliorative benefits.

Authority:

Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668, 687

People v. Weaver (2001) 26 Cal.4th 876, 925

People v. Gray (2005) 37 Cal.4th 168, 207

Juveniles, Probation Parole PRCS, Sentencing

Case: 000359

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The minor challenges a probation condition prohibiting use of “illegal drugs or mind altering substances except as prescribed by a physician,” and another condition stating defendant “must not be around persons the minor knows to be users or sellers of illegal drugs or mind altering substances.” The minor contends these conditions are constitutionally vague and overbroad because “mind altering substances” could include legal substances such as caffeine.

We hold the conditions, reasonably read, apply only to illegal drugs and illegal mind-altering substances, and therefore are neither vague nor overbroad. To avoid any ambiguity between the two conditions, however, we modify the second condition to include the same exception for physician-prescribed substances present in the first condition. As modified, we affirm the dispositional order.

First Holding:

To withstand a challenge on the ground of vagueness, a probation condition must be sufficiently precise for the probationer to know what is required of him, and for the court to determine whether the condition has been violated. The question is not whether a greater degree of precision would be desirable in principle, but whether it is constitutionally compelled. The vagueness doctrine demands no more than a reasonable degree of certainty. When reviewing the language of a probation condition, we assign it the meaning that would appear to a reasonable, objective reader. A probation condition is overbroad if it imposes limitations on a person’s constitutional rights but is not closely tailored to the purpose of the condition.

Authority:

In re Sheena K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 875, 890

People v. Hall (2017) 2 Cal.5th 494, 503

People v. Olguin (2008) 45 Cal.4th 375, 382

Second Holding:

Although the minor did not assert his constitutional challenge in the trial court, that challenge presents pure questions of law that can be resolved without reference to the particular sentencing record developed in the trial court and therefore may be raised for the first time on appeal. We review this constitutional challenge de novo.

Authority:

In re Sheena K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 875, 889

In re Malik J. (2015) 240 Cal.App.4th 896, 901

Third Holding:

The minor argues that the conditions are vague as to whether they are limited to illegal mind-altering substances, or apply to legal mind-altering substances as well. Specifically, he contends it is ambiguous whether the term “illegal” modifies “mind altering substances” or simply modifies “drugs,” the term “illegal” directly precedes. We do not think a reasonable, objective reader would parse the conditions to apply the term “illegal” to “drugs” but not to “mind altering substances.”

Authority:

People v. Olguin (2008) 45 Cal.4th 375, 382

Fourth Holding:

Defendant correctly notes condition No. 18 does not contain a prescription exception. Again, because condition No. 18 is limited to illegal substances, a prescription exception strictly speaking is unnecessary, and therefore, read by itself, the language of condition No. 18 is neither vague nor overbroad. In tandem with condition No. 17, however, the presence of a prescription exception in one condition and not the other arguably could create confusion. To remedy any such confusion, we modify condition No. 18 to include a prescription exception. Condition No. 18 is modified to read, “You must not be around persons you know to be users or sellers of illegal drugs or mind altering substances except as prescribed by a physician.”

Authority:

In re Sheena K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 875, 892 [approving reviewing court’s insertion of language to secure the constitutional validity of the probation condition]

In re Luis F. (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 176, 192 [tailoring probation condition to remedy vagueness and overbreadth]

Fines and fees, Juveniles, Retroactivity, Sentencing

Case: 000354

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Because of legislation enacted since the disposition hearing, the $300 restitution fine is ordered stricken in this Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 juvenile proceeding. The statutory change regarding joint and severally liability, however, does not apply retroactively.

First Holding:

While this appeal was pending, the Legislature amended Welfare and Institutions Code section 730.6 and removed the requirement that a minor pay a restitution fine. The relevant portion of the statute now states that the court shall not impose a separate and additional restitution fine against a minor found to be a person described in section 602. Because the judgment is not final, the appellant is entitled to the ameliorative benefits of this amendment.

Authority:

WIC 730.6

In re Estrada (1965) 63 Cal.2d 740

Second Holding:

The modification of section 730.6(b)(3), eliminating joint and several liability for juvenile offenders for direct restitution, is not punitive, but civil. Because it is not ameliorative of punishment, there is no presumption that it applies retroactively to nonfinal judgments. Enacted after the order imposing direct restitution jointly and severally with other parties, it has prospective effect only, and does not apply retroactively to this minor’s case.

Authority:

WIC 730.6(b)(3)

In re J.L. (2025) 117 Cal.App.5th 388