Case Name: People v. Sorto, Case #: B331652,
Court: CA Court of Appeal, District: 2 DCA, Division: 3, Opinion Date: 08/21/2024
The trial court erred in denying defendant’s PC 1170(d) petition when defendant was sentenced to more than 100 years for crimes committed when he was 15.
California's youth offender laws, designed to provide rehabilitative opportunities for young people who have committed crimes, are facing scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause. This constitutional provision mandates that all individuals within a jurisdiction receive equal treatment under the law. Critics argue that the current youth offender laws may unfairly disadvantage certain groups of young offenders, particularly those from marginalized communities, leading to disparate outcomes. As a result, the Courts are doing their part to reassess and make sure the youth offender laws are applied equitably to all youth offenders.
Under People v. Heard (2022) 83 Cal.App.5th 608, juvenile offenders sentenced to functionally equivalent LWOP terms are entitled to PC 1170(d) relief under the constitutional guarantee of equal protection. Heard is consistent with People v. Hardin (2024) 15 Cal.5th 834 and People v. Franklin (2016) 63 Cal.4th 261. Parole eligibility under PC 3051 does not render juvenile offenders ineligible for relief under section 1170(d).
SUMMARY:
A court sentenced Eddie Sorto to more than 100 years In prison for crimes he committed when he was 15 years old. After serving 15 years of his sentence, Sorto petitioned for recall and resentencing under Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (d) (section 1170(d)).
Sorto acknowledged the statute expressly applies only to juvenile offenders sentenced to explicit life without the possibility of parole (LWOP) terms. Nevertheless, He argued equal protection guarantees relief to offenders, like himself, sentenced to long prison terms that are the functional equivalent of LWOP.
About a year before the trial court considered Sorto’s petition, the court in People v. Heard (2022) 83 Cal.App.5th 608 (Heard) held juvenile offenders sentenced to functionally equivalent LWOP terms are entitled to section 1170(d) relief under the constitutional guarantee of equal protection. Despite this authority, the trial court denied Sorto’s petition on the ground that he had not been sentenced to an explicit LWOP term.
On appeal, Sorto raises the same equal protection argument and urges us to follow Heard. The Attorney General argues Heard was wrongly decided and is contrary to California Supreme Court precedent. We reject the Attorney General’s arguments and conclude offenders sentenced to functionally equivalent LWOP terms —like Sorto — are entitled to section 1170(d) relief under the constitutional guarantee of equal protection.
We also hold parole eligibility under section 3051 does not render those offenders ineligible for relief under section 1170(d).
Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s denial of Sorto’s petition and remand the case for the court to consider whether Sorto meets the other requirements for relief.
DISPOSITION
We reverse the order denying Eddie Sorto’s petition for relief under section 1170(d). On remand, the court shall reconsider Sorto’s petition in accordance with this opinion.
The full opinion is available on the court’s website here:
