Skip to content
Name: People v. Medrano
Case #: E070042
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 10/04/2019

A youth offender sentenced after People v. Franklin (2016) 63 Cal.4th 261 was not entitled to a remand to make a record of mitigating youth-related evidence, but may file a motion under Penal Code section 1203.01 pursuant to In re Cook (2019) 7 Cal.5th 439. Medrano was sentenced to 25 years to life, plus seven years, for offenses committed when he was 19 years old. His sentencing occurred over a year after the Supreme Court decided People v. Franklin (2016) 63 Cal.4th 261, which held that when a juvenile offender receives an indeterminate life sentence, the offender must be "given…

View Full Summary
Name: In re Bolton
Case #: C088774
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Opinion Date: 09/30/2019

Petitioner's 91-year sentence for juvenile offenses violates the Eighth Amendment and the issue was not moot because he is not eligible for a youth offender parole hearing. Bolton received a 91-year sentence for crimes committed when he was 16. When he was 30 years old, a sharp metal object was found in his cell. He was convicted of possession of a sharp instrument in prison and sentenced to 25 years to life under the Three Strikes law. Bolton filed habeas petitions challenging his sentence as cruel and unusual punishment and seeking youth offender treatment. The California Supreme…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Berg
Case #: D073749
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 04/29/2019

Once the reviewing court affirmed an order granting a habeas petition, trial court lacked jurisdiction to reconsider its decision based on a change in the law. In 1997, Berg pleaded guilty to murder committed during a robbery and was sentenced to LWOP. He was 17 years old when he committed the crime. In 2014, he filed a habeas petition arguing his LWOP sentence for a crime committed as a juvenile violated the Eighth Amendment. The trial court granted the petition and ordered a resentencing that comported with the requirements of Miller v. Alabama (2012) 567 U.S. 460. The prosecution appealed.…

View Full Summary
Name: In re Cook
Case #: S240153
Court: CA Supreme Court
District CalSup
Opinion Date: 06/03/2019

A defendant entitled to a hearing under Penal Code sections 3051 and 4801 may seek the remedy of a Franklin proceeding, even if the offender's sentence is otherwise final. In 2007, Cook was sentenced to LWOP and five consecutive terms of 25 years to life for crimes committed when he was 17 years old. In 2014, Cook filed a habeas petition challenging his sentence as cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment and Miller v. Alabama (2012) 567 U.S. 460. During Cook's habeas proceedings in the Court of Appeal, the court held (1) Cook's sentence was constitutional because…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Garcia
Case #: B269836
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 6
Opinion Date: 12/17/2018

Defendant who was 17 years old when he committed multiple sexual offenses is entitled to a remand of his case for a new juvenile fitness hearing because after Proposition 57 the criteria changed to determine whether a minor is fit for juvenile court treatment. In 1995, when Garcia was 17 years old, he committed violent sexual offenses against multiple victims. After a juvenile court fitness hearing, he was transferred to criminal court, where he received a 94-years-to-life sentence. In 2012, Garcia sought resentencing based on a new line of cases holding a sentence which amounts to LWOP imposed on a…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Carter
Case #: C074051
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Opinion Date: 09/05/2018

Trial court's consideration of juvenile offender's youth in determining whether to strike a prior serious felony before imposing a de facto LWOP sentence did not adequately discharge its duty under the Eighth Amendment. Carter was convicted of second degree murder and gun use for a crime committed when he was 17 years old. A prior serious felony was found true. He was sentenced to 55 years to life. On appeal he challenged his sentence as cruel and unusual punishment. Held: Reversed and remanded. The Eighth Amendment restrictions on sentencing juveniles to LWOPs also apply to terms that are de facto…

View Full Summary
Name: U.S. v. Briones
Case #: 16-10150
Court: US Court of Appeals
District 9 Cir
Opinion Date: 05/16/2018

District court does not violate Miller v. Alabama (2012) 567 U.S. 460, when it considers the "hallmarks of youth" factors at defendant's resentencing and reimposes a life term. Defendant was the leader of a gang who helped plan and execute numerous violent crimes, including murder, on the Salt River Reservation. He was 17 years old when some of the crimes occurred. Defendant was convicted of a number of federal offenses. The district court sentenced him to life without parole. Based on the Miller decision, defendant's request to vacate his original mandatory life sentence was granted. At resentencing the trial court…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Rodriguez and Barajas
Case #: S239713
Court: CA Supreme Court
District CalSup
Opinion Date: 05/17/2018

Appellant Barajas's convictions for murder and related charges must be reversed because the only evidence connecting him to the crimes was uncorroborated accomplice testimony. Rodriguez and Barajas were convicted of first degree murder and other offenses based on evidence that they were involved in a gang-related, drive-by shooting of a bystander at a park. They were 15 and 16 years old, respectively, at the time of the offense. At trial, an accomplice testified that he was in the car with both defendants when Barajas fired multiple shots and shouted their gang name before speeding off. On appeal, Barajas argued that…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Marsh
Case #: C078999
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Opinion Date: 02/22/2018

Due process and the prohibition against disproportionate punishment did not require trial court to instruct on irresistible impulse as the standard for sanity of a juvenile offender. Marsh, a juvenile offender, was found guilty of two counts of first degree murder. After often expressing a desire to kill, he randomly selected a home in the middle of the night and stabbed an elderly couple to death, mutilating their bodies. He was found sane following the sanity phase of the trial. On appeal, he argued that due process and the prohibition against disproportionate punishment required the trial court to…

View Full Summary
Name: In re Kirchner
Case #: S233508
Court: CA Supreme Court
District CalSup
Opinion Date: 04/24/2017

The availability of recall and resentencing pursuant to Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (d)(2) does not provide an adequate remedy at law for Miller error that would displace habeas corpus proceedings in this context. Kirchner was convicted of a special circumstance murder that he committed when he was 16 years old, and was sentenced to LWOP. He filed a writ petition contending that under Miller v. Alabama (2012) 567 U.S. ___, and People v. Gutierrez (2014) 58 Cal.4th 1354, his sentence violated the Eighth Amendment because the trial court failed to consider the "distinct attributes of youth" factors enunciated in…

View Full Summary