People v. Williams (under review) Youth Offender Parole--Constitutionality of Excluding Young Adults Sentenced Under One Strike law

What's up in the California Supreme Court?

For those following the cases in the Cal. Supreme Court; we list several cases below. The availability of early parole for youthful sex offenders is still unsettled and presently pending in the Cal. Supreme Court.  One case that is of particular interest for Parole Hearings is People v. Williams.

The court limited review to the following issue :

Does Penal Code section 3051, subdivision (h), violate the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by excluding young adults convicted and sentenced for serious sex crimes under the One Strike law (Pen. Code, § 667.61) from youth offender parole consideration, while young adults convicted of first degree murder are entitled to such consideration? (People v. Williams (2020) 47 Cal.App.5th 475, San Diego County Superior Court; review granted 7/22/2020 (S262229/D074098).)

Review on this issue has also been granted with briefing deferred in:

    People v. Williams (Apr. 7, 2020, A157031) [nonpub. opn.], review granted 7/22/2020 (S262191)
    People v. Moseley (2021) 59 Cal.App.5th 1160, review granted 4/14/2021 (S267309/B303321)
    People v. Escamilla (Mar. 18, 2021, F077568) [nonpub. opn.], review granted 5/26/2021 (S268403)
   People v. Cervantes (Mar. 30, 2021, G057340) [nonpub. opn.], review granted 6/16/2021 (S268298)
    People v. Miranda (2021) 62 Cal.App.5th 162, review granted 6/16/2021 (S268384/E071542)
    In re Woods (2021) 62 Cal.App.5th 740, review granted 6/16/2021 (S268740/B301891)

===================================================================

Other Noteworthy Criminal Cases Pending In The California Supreme Court (As of July 2021)


People v. Carney, S260063. (C077558; nonpublished opinion; Sacramento County Superior Court; 11F00700.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal remanded for resentencing in part and otherwise affirmed judgments of conviction of criminal offenses. The court limited review to the following issues: (1) Does the “substantial concurrent causation” theory of liability of People v. Sanchez (2001) 26 Cal.4th 834 permit a conviction for first degree murder if the defendants did not fire the shot that killed the victim? (2) What impact, if any, do People v. Chiu (2014) 59 Cal.4th 155 and Senate Bill No. 1437 (Stats. 2018, ch. 1015, § 1, subd. (f)) have on the rule of Sanchez?

People v. Duke, S265309. (B300430; 55 Cal.App.5th 113; Los Angeles County Superior Court; MA057733.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed an order denying a post-judgment motion in a criminal matter. The court limited review to the following issue: Can the People meet their burden of establishing a petitioner’s ineligibility for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.95, subdivision (d)(3) by presenting substantial evidence of the petitioner’s liability for murder under Penal Code sections 188 and 189 as amended by Senate Bill No. 1437 (Stats. 2018, ch. 1015), or must the People prove every element of liability for murder under the amended statutes beyond a reasonable doubt?

People v. Federico, S263082. (E072620; 50 Cal.App.5th 318; Riverside County Superior Court; SWF017423.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed a judgment of conviction of criminal offenses. This case presents the following issue: Did defendant’s resentencing pursuant to Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (d)(1) “reopen” the finality of his sentence, such that he was entitled to the retroactive application of Proposition 57 and Senate Bill No. 1391 on an otherwise long-final conviction? (See also People v. Padilla, S263375.)

People v. Henderson, S265172. (B298366; 54 Cal.App.5th 612; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BA437882.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed a judgment of conviction of criminal offenses. The court limited review to the following issue: Does the Three Strikes law (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subd. (c)(6) & (7), 1170.12, subd. (a)(6) & (7)) require consecutive terms on multiple current violent or serious felony convictions, regardless of whether the offenses occurred on the same occasion or arose from the same set of operative facts?

People v. Kopp, S257844. (D072464; 38 Cal.App.5th 47; San Diego County Superior Court; SCN327213.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed in part and reversed in part judgments of conviction of criminal offenses. The court limited review to the following issues: (1) Must a court consider a defendant’s ability to pay before imposing or executing fines, fees, and assessments? (2) If so, which party bears the burden of proof regarding the defendant’s inability to pay?

In re Long, S249274. (E066388; nonpublished opinion; Riverside County Superior Court; RIF113354.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed an order granting relief on a petition for writ of habeas corpus. This case presents the following issues: (1) Did defense counsel render ineffective assistance by failing to consult a qualified expert on determining time of death and failing to present evidence regarding defendant’s clothing around the time of the crime? (2) Did the decision of the Court of Appeal adhere to the controlling standards of appellate review?

In re Lopez, S258912. (A152748; nonpublished opinion; Sonoma County Superior Court; SCR32760.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal reversed an order granting relief on a petition for writ of habeas corpus. This case presents the following issues: (1) Does a true finding on a gang-killing special circumstance (Pen. Code, § 190.2, subd. (a)(22)) render Chiu error (People v. Chiu (2014) 59 Cal.4th 155) harmless? (2) To what extent or in what manner, if any, may a reviewing court consider the evidence in favor of a legally valid theory in assessing whether it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that the jury based its verdict on the valid theory, when the record contains indications that the jury considered the invalid theory? (See People v. Aledamat (2019) 8 Cal.5th 1.)

People v. Lopez, S258175. (B271516; 38 Cal.App.5th 1087; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BA404685.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed in part and reversed in part judgments of conviction of criminal offenses. The court limited review to the following issues: (1) Does Senate Bill No. 1437 (Stats. 2018, ch. 1015) apply to attempted murder liability under the natural and probable consequences doctrine? (2) In order to convict an aider and abettor of attempted willful, deliberate and premeditated murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine, must a premeditated attempt to murder have been a natural and probable consequence of the target offense? In other words, should People v. Favor (2012) 54 Cal.4th 868 be reconsidered in light of Alleyne v. United States (2013) 570 U.S. 99 and People v. Chiu (2014) 59 Cal.4th 155?

In re Mohammad, S259999. (B295152; 42 Cal.App.5th 719; Los Angeles County Superior Court; BA361122, BH011959.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal granted relief on a petition for writ of habeas corpus. This case presents the following issue: Is a prisoner serving a sentence for a combination of violent and nonviolent felonies eligible for early parole consideration under the provisions of Proposition 57 following completion of the term for his or her primary offense?

People v. Strong, S266606. (C091162; nonpublished opinion; Sacramento County Superior Court; 11F06729.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed an order denying a post-judgment motion in a criminal matter. This case presents the following issue: Does a felony murder
special circumstance finding (Pen. Code, § 190.2, subd. (a)(17)) made before People v. Banks (2015) 61 Cal.4th 788 and People v. Clark (2016) 63 Cal.4th 522 preclude a defendant from making a prima facie showing of eligibility for relief under Penal Code section 1170.95?

People v. Superior Court (Jones), S255826. (D074028; 34 Cal.App.5th 75; San Diego County Superior Court; CR136371.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal denied a petition for peremptory writ of mandate. This case presents the following issue: Does Penal Code section 1054.9 entitle an eligible defendant to discovery of a trial prosecutor’s notes about jury selection with respect to a claim of Batson/Wheeler (Batson v. Kentucky (1986) 476 U.S. 79; People v. Wheeler (1978) 22 Cal.3d 258) error at trial?

People v. Tirado, S257658. (F076836; 38 Cal.App.5th 637; Kern County Superior Court; BF163811A.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal affirmed a judgment of conviction of criminal offenses. This case presents the following issue: Can the trial court impose an enhancement under Penal Code section 12022.53, subdivision (b), for personal use of a firearm, or under section 12022.53, subdivision (c), for personal and intentional discharge of a firearm, as part of its authority under section 1385 and subdivision (h) of section 12022.53 to strike an enhancement under subdivision (d) for personal and intentional discharge of a firearm resulting in death or great bodily injury, even if the lesser enhancements were not charged in the information or indictment and were not submitted to the jury?