Tag Archives: Excessive punishment

Equal protection, Juveniles, Sentencing

Case 000552

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court erred in concluding that a sentence of 45 years to life is not the functional equivalent of a sentence to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole (LWOP), within the context of section 1170(d) for those who committed an offense as a juvenile and were convicted as an adult.

First Holding:

Section 1170(d)(1)(A) provides that 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. Where the length of a sentence is the functional equivalent of LWOP, it is a denial of equal protection to exclude the defendant from consideration under section 1170(d).

Authority:

PEN 1170

People v. Heard (2022) 83 Cal.App.5th 608

People v. Contreras (2018) 4 Cal.5th 349 [50 years to life is the functional equivalent of LWOP for a nonhomicide juvenile offender in the Eighth Amendment context]

Second Holding:

The People contend that defendant’s current eligibility for early youth offender parole under section 3051 and future eligibility at age 50 for elderly parole under section 3055 render him ineligible for relief under section 1170(d). However, that question is being considered by the Supreme Court in Munoz. Pending that decision, we agree with the reasoning in Heard that section 3051 eligibility does not defeat defendant’s section 1170(d) petition.

Authority:

People v. Munoz (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 499, review granted June 25, 2025, S290828

People v. Sorto (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 435

People v. Bagsby (2024) 106 Cal.App.5th 1040

Duty of the court, Fines and fees, Sentencing

Case: 000395

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Because the defendant requested the court impose the minimum restitution fine and the court did not consider his ability to pay and imposed fines exceeding the statutory minimum, we reverse and remand solely for reconsideration of imposition of the fines.

First Holding:

Section 1202.4(b) requires trial courts to impose a restitution fine when a defendant is convicted of a felony unless it finds compelling and extraordinary reasons for not doing so. For felony convictions, the required fine is not less than $300 and not more than $10,000. A defendant’s inability to pay shall not be considered a compelling and extraordinary reason not to impose a restitution fine. Inability to pay may be considered only in increasing the amount of the restitution fine in excess of the minimum fine of $300. And for those defendants whose sentence includes a period of parole, the trial court must impose a parole revocation restitution fine in the same amount. The latter fine shall be suspended unless the person’s parole is revoked.

Authority:

PEN 1202.4

PEN 1202.45

Second Holding:

A trial court must conduct an ability to pay hearing before imposing a restitution fine that exceeds the statutory minimum of $300. As in Kopp, the trial court here imposed restitution and parole revocation fines exceeding $300 without conducting an ability to pay hearing. And there is no affirmative evidence indicating that the trial court knew that defendant’s ability to pay was a factor in determining the fine to be imposed. Nor did the trial court indicate that it considered counsel’s objection that the defendant could not afford to pay fines exceeding $300. The trial court only stated that counsel’s “comments are noted for the record.” Thus, we cannot conclude the trial court considered the defendant’s financial wherewithal in deciding to impose more than the minimum fine. We reverse and remand for the trial court to conduct an ability to pay hearing because the imposed fines exceeded the minimum.

Authority:

People v. Kopp (2025) 19 Cal.5th 1

People v. Ramirez (2021) 10 Cal.5th 983, 1042

Eighth Amendment, Sentencing

Case: 000386

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

A court must consider a defendant’s inability to pay before imposing a court operations assessment and a court facilities assessment. We therefore remand to the trial court to conduct an inability to pay hearing as to those assessments.

First Holding:

Under Kopp, a court must consider a defendant’s inability to pay before imposing a court operations assessment and a court facilities assessment.

Authority:

People v. Kopp (2025) 19 Cal.5th 1

Second Holding:

Restitution fines and parole revocation fines under sections 1202.4 and 1202.45a), respectively, are punitive fines. Court operations assessments and court facilities assessments, under section 1465.8(a)(1) and Government Code section 70373(a)(1), respectively, are ancillary costs and not punishment. As to punitive fines, subject to the Eighth Amendment, a court may impose a nonexcessive fine as punishment. therwise, an excessive fines analysis applies to punitive fines imposed in excess of the minimum. Because the trial court here imposed punitive fines in the minimum amounts of $300 and stayed the parole revocation fine, they are not subject to an inability to pay hearing, as the defendant concedes.

Authority:

People v. Kopp (2025) 19 Cal.5th 1, 13-15

Third Holding:

However, ancillary costs do implicate equal protection principles. The court operations and facilities assessments are ancillary costs intended to raise funds for the courts. A criminal defendant cannot avoid the imposition of these costs regardless of indigency. By contrast, an indigent civil litigant may have similar fees waived entirely. Where the Legislature has already determined that both criminal defendants and civil litigants should be charged similar amounts for the same reasons, there appears no rational basis to deny only indigent criminal defendants the ability to avoid those costs. Accordingly, equal protection principles require a court, upon request, to consider a defendant’s inability to pay before imposing a court operations assessment under section 1465.8(a)(1) or a court facilities assessment under Government Code section 70373(a)(1). Therefore, the trial court here should have considered the defendants’s inability to pay before imposing the $40 court operations assessment under section 1465.8(a)(1) and the $30 criminal conviction assessment fee under Government Code section 70373(a)(1).

Authority:

People v. Kopp (2025) 19 Cal.5th 1, 18, 28-29, 30

Elements of crime, Sentencing, Standard of review, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Case: 000351

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

There was insufficient evidence to support the conviction of aggravated sexual assault by sexual penetration under section 289. The One Strike law applies only to certain offenses. The offense resulting in conviction of Count 18 is not one of those offenses, and the One Strike Sentence for that count is modified accordingly.

First Holding:

Section 289 defines various terms pertaining to the conduct it describes as a crime. [Gary note: you just witnessed a little adjustment of precise language to maintain a “G” rating for this movie. If you have an issue involving this section, read it carefully for its definitions. In this case, the conduct in question did not meet the definition for violation of this section.]

Authority:

PEN 289(k)

Second Holding:

When reviewing for substantial evidence, we examine the entire record in the light most favorable to the prosecution to determine if a rational factfinder could find the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Substantial evidence is reasonable, credible evidence of solid value, even if circumstantial. We will reverse only if upon no hypothesis whatever is there sufficient substantial evidence to support it.

Authority:

People v. Zamudio (2008) 43 Cal.4th 327, 357

People v. Redmond (1969) 71 Cal.2d 745, 755

Third Holding:

When insufficient evidence supports a conviction for a greater offense, we may modify the judgment to reflect a conviction for a lesser included offense.

Authority:

People v. Bailey (2012) 54 Cal.4th 740, 748

Fourth Holding:

The only lesser offenses here are time barred. Although the defendant did not raise the statute of limitations in his supplemental brief, a defendant may not inadvertently forfeit the statute of limitations and be convicted of a time-barred charged offense. Because the only applicable lesser included offenses are time-barred, we must reverse the defendant’s conviction for count 19 for insufficient evidence.

Authority:

People v. Williams (1999) 21 Cal.4th 335, 338

Kellett v. Superior Court (1966) 63 Cal.2d 822, 827 [Failure to unite all such offenses will result in a bar to subsequent prosecution of any offense omitted if the initial proceedings culminate in either acquittal or conviction and sentence.]

Fifth Holding:

The One Strike law, section 667.61, applies only to certain felony sex offenses. The defendant’s Count 18 conviction is not among those offenses. Consequently, we reverse the jury’s two count 18 true findings under section 667.61.

Authority:

PEN 667.61(c)

People v. Anderson (2009) 47 Cal.4th 92, 102

People v. Seals (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 1379, 1385

Sixth Holding:

The defendant contends his sentence of [hundreds of years to life] constitutes cruel and unusual punishment under the United States and California Constitutions. The defendant forfeited this claim of error. A claim that a sentence is cruel or unusual requires a fact specific inquiry and is forfeited if not raised below. At the sentencing hearing, defense counsel never invoked the state constitutional prohibition against cruel or unusual punishment (Cal. Const., art. I, sec. 17). The defendant did not adequately preserve an objection under the Eighth Amendment either. To the contrary, after imposing the sentence, the court asked if counsel for either side wanted to be heard, and defense counsel responded, “No.” As a result, the defendant’s federal constitutional claim is also forfeited.

Authority:

People v. Baker (2018) 20 Cal.App.5th 711, 720

People v. Boyce (2014) 59 Cal.4th 672, 731

Discretion, Eighth Amendment, Equal protection, Fines and fees, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case: 000346

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court imposed a minimum $300 restitution fine and an assessment of $70 in ancillary costs. The trial court held a hearing and determined that the defendant had the ability to pay. We affirm the order on ancillary costs but remand to give the defendant the opportunity to further challenge the restitution fine under Kopp.

First Holding:

A person convicted of a crime can, and in some cases must, be ordered to pay a variety of punitive fines along with other nonpunitive ancillary costs. Some statutes require the imposition of fines and ancillary costs regardless of a defendant’s ability to pay. Other statutes require a finding of the ability to pay or allow for its consideration. Restitution fines under section 1202.4 are considered punitive fines, whereas assessments to fund court facilities and operations are considered ancillary costs. The distinction between punitive fines and other imposed payments is important because it impacts whether a given form of required payment is initially challenged under, and then reviewed under, the constitutional excessive fines clauses, or under the constitutional provision for equal protection.

Authority:

People v. Kopp (2025) 19 Cal.5th 1, 11, 12, 14-15, 18 [we analyze fines and ancillary costs separately because different justifications support each, and different constitutional protections apply]

Second Holding:

If requested by a defendant, the court must consider the defendant’s inability to pay before imposing a court operations assessment under section 1465.8(a)(1), or a court facilities assessment under Government Code section 70373(a)(1).

Authority:

People v. Kopp (2025) 19 Cal.5th 1, 25-26, 30 [in light of the Legislature’s provision of fee waivers to indigent civil litigants, equal protection principles require a court, upon request, to consider a defendant’s inability to pay before imposing either assessment]

Third Holding:

In reaching its conclusion that the defendant did not meet his burden to show his inability to pay the ancillary costs, the court considered his potential to earn wages while in prison and his general ability to work, which was within its discretion to do. The trial court did not state that it was relying solely on the defendant’s ability to earn wages while in prison. The court found simply that he is capable of working. The trial court’s conclusion that he had the ability to pay $70 in court assessments was not arbitrary or irrational.

Authority:

People v. Fish (2024) 102 Cal.App.5th 730, 739 [collecting cases]

People v. Santos (2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 923, 934 [factors to consider in determining ability to pay may include, among others, the defendant’s realistic ability to earn prison wages or obtain employment]

People v. Castellano (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 485, 490, disapproved in part as stated in Kopp, at p. 23, fn. 17. 490 [trial court may consider potential prison pay during the period of incarceration” in determining inability to pay]

People v. Cervantes (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 213, 229 [ability to pay includes the ability both to obtain prison wages and to earn money after release from custody]

People v. Carmony (2004) 33 Cal.4th 367, 377 [a trial court does not abuse its discretion unless its decision is so irrational or arbitrary that no reasonable person could agree with it]

Fourth Holding:

Punitive fines are subject to a different approach. There is no due process requirement to hold an ability to pay hearing before imposing every punitive fine. Sentencing judges may, and often do, consider the defendant’s ability to pay, but in such circumstances they are guided by sound judicial discretion rather than by constitutional mandate.

Authority:

People v. Kopp (2025) 19 Cal.5th 1, 11, 23

San Antonio Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Rodriguez (1973) 411 U.S. 1, 22

Fifth Holding:

A court has discretion to impose a nonexcessive fine as punishment, even on indigent defendants. Thus, the excessive fines analysis, which considers ability to pay, is the proper vehicle to challenge punitive fines. The touchstone of the constitutional inquiry for excessive fines is the principle of proportionality: The amount of the forfeiture must bear some relationship to the gravity of the offense that it is designed to punish. While ability to pay may be part of the proportionality analysis, it is not the only factor.

Authority:

U.S. Const., 8th Amend.

Cal. Const., art. I, sec. 17

People v. Kopp (2025) 19 Cal.5th 1, 21, 23

United States v. Bajakajian (1998) 524 U.S. 321, 334

Sixth Holding:

Under section 1202.4(b), the restitution fine shall be set at the discretion of the court and commensurate with the seriousness of the offense. The court shall impose the restitution fine unless it finds compelling and extraordinary reasons for not doing so and states those reasons on the record. A defendant’s inability to pay shall not be considered a compelling and extraordinary reason not to impose a restitution fine. Inability to pay may be considered only in increasing the amount of the restitution fine in excess of the minimum fine.

Authority:

PEN 1202.4

Seventh Holding:

A court’s ruling on ability to pay is reviewed for abuse of discretion. The defendant bears the burden of demonstrating his or her inability to pay the imposed amounts.

Authority:

People v. Kopp (2025) 19 Cal.5th 1, 21, 24

People v. Wilson (2023) 14 Cal.5th 839, 868

People v. Lowery (2020) 43 Cal.App.5th 1046, 1057, 1053

Eighth Amendment, Equal protection, Fines and fees, Sentencing

Case: 000338

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

When it initially granted the defendant probation, the court waived various fines and assessments based on indigence. On revocation of probation, the court imposed a restitution fine and other assessments. Remanded for the court to consider the defendant’s challenges to the fees and assessments in light of a recent Supreme Court decision.

First Holding:

Under the Supreme Court’s holding in Kopp a defendant may challenge the imposition of any fine as constitutionally excessive. Because Kopp was decided after entry of the juidgment on appeal here, the defendant should have the opportunity to make such a challenge. Though the court could determine that the issue was forfeited for lack of objection, forfeiture may be excused where to require defense counsel to raise an objection would place an unreasonable burden on defendants to anticipate unforeseen changes in the law.

Authority:

People v. Kopp (2025) 19 Cal.5th 1

People v. Perez (2020) 9 Cal.5th 1, 8

People v. Brown (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 113, 127 [Courts generally decline to apply the forfeiture rule to a right derived from recent, unanticipated changes to the law.]

Second Holding:

A restitution fine under section 1202.4(b)(1) is required in every case where a person is convicted of a crime unless the court finds compelling and extraordinary reasons for not doing so and states those reasons on the record. ) Section 1202.4, subdivision (b)(1), states that the minimum restitution fine is $300 for each felony conviction and that the maximum fine is $10,000. Section 1202.4, subdivision (c), allows the court not to impose the restitution fine for compelling and extraordinary reasons, but states the defendant’s inability to pay is not a compelling and extraordinary reason not to impose the minimum fine. Thus, the defendant’s inability to pay shall not be considered a compelling and extraordinary reason not to impose a restitution fine. Inability to pay may be considered only in increasing the amount of the restitution fine in excess of the minimum fine.

Authority:

PEN 1202.4
People v. Kopp (2025) 19 Cal.5th 1, 13, 30

People v. El (2021) 65 Cal.App.5th 963, 967

People v. Preston (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 415, 423

People v. Miracle (2018) 6 Cal.5th 318, 356

People v. Montelongo (2020) 55 Cal.App.5th 1016, 1033 [Under section 1202.4(c), the trial court may not consider a defendant’s ability to pay when imposing the minimum restitution fine of $300, but the court may consider the defendant’s ability to pay if the court imposes a restitution fine above the minimum.]

Third Holding:

Although fines may properly be imposed as punishment for crime, the “excessive fines analysis” under the United States and California Constitutions, which considers ability to pay, is the proper vehicle to challenge punitive fines. But there is no due process requirement to hold an ability to pay hearing before imposing every punitive fine.

Authority:

People v. Kopp (2025) 19 Cal.5th 1, 23 and fn. 17

Fourth Holding:

Section 1465.8(a)(1) requires, to assist in funding court operations, an assessment of $40 to be imposed on every conviction for a criminal offense. Government Code section 70373(a)(1) requires, to ensure and maintain adequate funding for court facilities, that $30 assessment be imposed on every conviction for a criminal offense. Both costs are mandatory. But equal protection principles require a court, upon request, to consider a defendant’s inability to pay before imposing a court operations assessment under section 1465.8(a)(1) or a court facilities assessment under Government Code section 70373(a)(1).

Authority:

PEN 1465.8

GOV 70373(a)(1)

People v. Kopp (2025) 19 Cal.5th 1, 9, 15

People v. Robinson (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 401, 405

Eighth Amendment, Juveniles, Sentencing

Case 000313

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

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

Abstracts and Minutes, Eighth Amendment, Fines and fees, Probation Parole PRCS, Sentencing

Case: 000176

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The $150 restitution fine and the parole revocation fine imposed on count three are unauthorized and must be vacated or stayed. The fine had been imposed on a count that was stayed under Penal Code section 654. Aside from that problem, a separate parole revocation fine cannot be imposed on a misdemeanor offense. Also, the abstract of judgment must be corrected because it incorrectly states that he has a prior strike and was sentenced under Penal Code section 667(b) through (i), or section 1170.12.

First Holding:

When a court imposes multiple punishments in violation of section 654, it acts in excess of its jurisdiction and imposes an unauthorized sentence that can be challenged for the first time on appeal.

Authority:

People v. Soto (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 1219, 1234

Second Holding:

Defendant is not subject to parole separately for the misdemeanor and is thus not subject to a parole revocation restitution fine on it.

Authority:

People v. Holmes (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 539, 547

Third Holding:

The abstract of judgment must be corrected because it erroneously states that he has a prior strike and that he was sentenced under section 667(b) through (i), or section 1170.12. There is no indication in the record defendant has sustained a prior strike conviction. We will order the abstract of judgment corrected to reflect that he does not have a strike prior, and he was not sentenced pursuant to section 667(b) through (i), or section 1170.12.

[Gary note: The court cited no authority for the obvious proposition that the abstract of judgment needs to be corrected. I have listed below some of many cases that the court could have relied on.]

Authority:

People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185

People v. Delgado (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1059, 1070

People v. Leon (2020) 8 Cal.5th 831, 855

In re Black (1967) 66 Cal.2d 881, 890

People v. Zackery (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 380, 385

People v. Farell (2002) 28 Cal.4th 381, 384, fn. 2

Eighth Amendment, Sentencing

Case: 000091

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

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)