Skip to content
Name: People v. Garrett
Case #: C067436
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Opinion Date: 01/20/2017
Summary

Pursuant to People v. Franklin (2016) 63 Cal.4th 261, Court of Appeal remands juvenile nonhomicide case to the trial court to allow defendant an opportunity to create a record of youth-related mitigating factors for use at a future youth parole hearing. The 17-year-old minor defendants were convicted of multiple violent nonhomicide offenses. Garrett was sentenced to 74 years to life. After the Court of Appeal filed its original opinion, the California Supreme Court granted review and transferred the cause back to the Court of Appeal for reconsideration in light of Franklin. The court in Franklin held that SB No. 260 and its statutory implementation, Penal Code section 3051 (which effectively reforms the parole eligibility date of a juvenile offender’s original sentence so that the longest possible term of incarceration before parole eligibility is 25 years), rendered a lengthy juvenile sentence constitutional. However, the Franklin court remanded the case to allow the defendant an opportunity to present youth-related mitigating evidence for future use at a parole hearing. Held: Remanded. In Graham v. Florida (2010) 560 U.S. 48, the Court held the Eighth Amendment prohibits a State from imposing an LWOP sentence on a juvenile nonhomicide offender. In Miller v. Alabama (2012) 132 S.Ct. 2455, the Court concluded the Eighth Amendment prohibits a state from mandating the imposition of an LWOP sentence on a juvenile homicide offender. Although Garrett’s sentence was initially unconstitutional, section 3051 cures the constitutional defects by affording him a future parole hearing and a meaningful opportunity for release. Remand is nonetheless required to allow the trial court to determine whether or not Garrett was afforded an adequate opportunity to make a record of youth-related mitigating factors for use at a future youth offender parole hearing.

The full opinion is available on the court’s website here: http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/C067436M.PDF