Skip to content
Name: People v. Padilla
Case #: B265614
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 4
Opinion Date: 10/25/2016

Remand for resentencing appropriate for juvenile homicide offender because trial court did not have benefit of Montgomery v. Lousiana (2016) 577 U.S. ___ [136 S.Ct. 718], when it found LWOP sentence was appropriate under Miller v. Alabama (2012) 567 U.S. ___ [132 S.Ct. 2455]. Padilla was sentenced to LWOP for a murder he committed when he was 16 years old. He sought resentencing after the U.S. Supreme Court decided Miller, which held that the Eighth Amendment prohibited mandatory LWOP terms for juvenile homicide offenders and required consideration of the offender’s youth and attendant characteristics before imposing an LWOP term. The trial court resentenced Padilla to LWOP; however, it did not find that Padilla was incorrigible. Padilla appealed. Held: Reversed and remanded. While Padilla’s appeal was pending, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Montgomery, which clarified that Miller bars LWOP terms “for all but the rarest of juvenile offenders, those whose crimes reflect permanent incorrigibility.” The Court of Appeal here concluded that Montgomery requires a trial court to make a finding of permanent incorrigibility before sentencing a juvenile offender to LWOP. Because the trial court in this case sentenced Padilla to LWOP without the benefit of Montgomery and did not make a finding of permanent incorrigibility, the case must be remanded for resentencing.

The full opinion is available on the court’s website here: