08/21/2024 People v. Sorto : The trial court erred in denying defendant’s PC 1170(d) petition because sentence was functionally equivalent to LWOP terms

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:

 https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B331652.PDF

Prop 57 litigation: CDCR is currently prohibited from releasing on parole, ISL,who had a parole hearing conducted based on a Minimum Parole Eligible Date that was advanced (earlier date) based on Proposition 57 credit earning

California Proposition 57, also known as the Public Safety and Rehabilitation Act of 2016, was a ballot initiative that passed in California on November 8, 2016.  In short, it gave CDCR the authority to award credits earned for good behavior and approved rehabilitative programming or educational achievements to those incarcerated. 

To implement this policy CDCR created new regulations, (sections 3043 through 3043.7 of Title 15) that went into effect on May 1, 2017. The regulations impacted Minimum eligible Parole Dates (MEPD). For many determinate sentenced (DSL) prisoners, these credits provided a way to a shorter time in prison. For lifers, credits applied under the Prop. 57-promulgated regulations impacted not the direct length of their sentence, but the timing of their initial (first) parole hearing. 

Fast forward to 2018 when an organization, Criminal Justice Legal Foundation (CJLF, founded in 1982), sued CDCR in Sacramento County Superior Court, on the premise that CDCR was not authorized by Prop. 57 to promulgate the regulations applying credits to an individual’s MEPD. 

Pursuant to the December 13, 2023 ruling and January 26, 2024 judgment by the Sacramento County Superior Court, CDCR is currently prohibited from releasing on parole, indeterminately sentenced (ISL) people who had a parole hearing conducted based on a Minimum Parole Eligible Date that was advanced (earlier date) based on Proposition 57 credit earning.

In other words, the order from the Court said CDCR must (1) stop applying Prop 57 credits when calculating MEPDs, and (2) stop conducting parole suitability hearings based on MEPDs that have been advanced by Prop 57 credits, and (3) stop releasing those people found suitable for parole at hearings conducted on this basis. 

CDCR filed an appeal in January 2024, prompting the court to issue a partial stay to parts of the decision, allowing BPH to continue to apply Prop. 57 credits to MEPDs and continue to hold parole hearings for those impacted, but confirming the HOLD on releases for those individuals, if they are found suitable. Basically, the department can calculate when a lifer’s initial hearing will be held, based on Prop. 57 credits, and can continue to execute those hearings, but just can’t release those who are granted parole, at one of these re-calculated hearings. 

CDCR estimates this legal fight is likely headed to the Cal Supreme Court, and may not be decided for a couple of years. As of the writing of this BLOG, there are a number of individuals with grants of parole still in CDCR custody. We do not have numbers on how many inmates are still scheduled for parole hearings in the next few months. Because of this litigation (and to be on the safe side) CDCR is recalculating the MEPD dates of those impacted by removing Prop. 57 credits, after the individual is granted parole. Keep in mind that only credits applied under Prop. 57 are at issue and not all the RAC or milestone credits.

Please realize that this litigation was NOT initiated by CDCR nor BPH;  they are actually defending the lawsuit to assist inmates to keep their P57 credits that got them the earlier hearing date (and potential early grant). Attorneys from CDCR, BPH, and the Attorney General’s office are involved in fighting for the eventual overturning of this decision. 

Below is the current parole hearing process while still in Litigation: 

--. If someone is granted parole - Case Record Services and the Board will review and recalculate MEPD of people impacted by the litigation 

 -- If the newly recalculated MEPD is a date in the past, CDCR will release the person pursuant to standard processes

-- If the newly calculated MEPD is a date in the future, CDCR will review all other relevant parole eligible dates (including Youth Parole, Nonviolent Parole, Elderly Parole Eligibility Dates). On the earliest parole eligible date, CDCR will release the person pursuant to standard processes

-- The Board will continue to hold parole hearings that may have been advanced under Prop. 57 credits

 -- For those who are found suitable but fall under this cloud, any parole grant given will remain valid and s/he will be released as soon as CDCR can find a way to do so using another MEPD (elder, youth, or other factors) or when the litigation is concluded. 

According to CDCR you will NOT be impacted under the Prop. 57 cloud if: 

--Your MEPD was before May 1, 2017 (before Prop 57 credits were applied) 

--A Youth Parole Eligible Date (YPED) that is in the past 

--A Nonviolent Parole Eligible Date (NPED) that is in the past, or 

--An Elderly Parole Eligible Date that is in the past (EPED)

--Your grant was attained at a grant held in line with Nonviolent Parole Eligible Date (NPED), Youth Parole Eligible Date (YPED), or Elderly Parole Eligible Date (EPED). 

MEPDs will continue to be calculated with Prop 57 credits and will continue to be reflected in SOMS and CIRIS (BPH/CDCR databases) and the Board will continue to conduct parole hearings based on this date. Because of these database input, it will be almost impossible for you, your attorney or your counselor to easily determine if you will be impacted by this on-going litigation. 

What advocacy is being done to support those who are affected?
On July 29, 2024, advocates sent a letter asking the Governor to grant clemency to all whose release dates are impacted by this litigation and Secretary Macomber to offer those impacted the choice of being housed in a Pre-Release Community Program (MCRP or FCRP) for the remainder of their incarceration. The letter also urges state policy makers to identify potential legislative solutions. Please note, there is no guarantee that this letter will result in any of the requested outcomes.

Some potential work-around is for the inmate to Waive (postpone) the hearing that was advanced due to credits under Prop. 57. This is a case-by-case basis decision and it should be reviewed with the Inmate’s attorney. There are many factors that come into play at a Parole Hearing - it is best to discuss this potential option with the inmate’s attorney. This choice may have a financial impact if you are using a FREE state appointed attorney vs. a PAID attorney, that will normally charge per hearings.

EIGHT ANNUAL Lifer BBQ (2024)--- find YOUR LIFER or ATTORNEY

EIGHT ANNUAL 2024 Lifer BBQ find YOUR LIFER or ATTORNEY LIFER BBQ at City Buena Park - 

Fun had by ALL again!   FIND YOUR LIFER - BELOW......

The Eight (2024) annual lifer picnic Hosted by Gary “Red” Eccher [ECCHER CONSULTING COMPANY (ECC)] came back strong AFTER a 4-year Hiatus due to Covid19, (over 200 attendees).

Pick your Attorney: Marc Norton, Diane Letarte, Michael Beckman, and our Client Troy

BPH FAD Staff joined us at the PICNIC, Yolanda, Attorney Letarte, as well as with Venessa of the Lifer Support Alliance (LSA)

Our Client Juan with Attorney Letarte and Yolanda

The "infamous" Venessa and David Sloane from LSA. Thanks for all their support to the LIFER and their great On the Road seminars behind bars or on Zoom such as "Connect the Dots", etc.. They drove over 7 hours to come to Beuna Park for the Lifer Picnic! DEDICATION

 Atty Letarte, Troy, Yolanda

Attorney Letarte, Attorney Beckman, "Doc" Miller (CLN Founder)

Fun At The LIFER Picnic

 ...more Fun... Find your LIFER.

"Red" having a chat...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3PM PHOTO SHOOT - LEFT ANGLE

 3PM - PHOTO SHOOT - RIGHT ANGLE

 

 

WHAT A GREAT FUN GROUP.....

Yolanda, Garnica (ARC project), Atty Letarte

Fun in the shade... great temperature with a nice breeze...

 

 

We hope to see you all next year - Pass the word - it is back on !!! It grows every year, with the typical grilled hot dog, BBQ style. We had additional food items ranging from pizza to fried chicken; delivered fresh and hot throughout through the day. The meals were well rounded with veggies, fruits (sweet)! We had great 75ish degree weather with a cool breezes in the typical Southern Sunny California day. It appears that over 200 people gathered thorough the day at Buena Park (ANAHEIM) from Noon to 5pm. We added the usual LIFER Group picture (see above) taken on or about 3pm that afternoon.

In re Randy C. (5/03/2024) CASE OF THE MONTH : A marijuana blunt = “open container” = Probable cause to search YOUR car

In re Randy C. (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 933, Case #: A167331, 

Court: CA Court of Appeal, District: 1 DCA, Division: 5, 

Opinion Date: 05/03/2024 

We do not normally post CASES that are not LIFER or Resentencing (PC 1172) related but this case caught our eye for the CASE OF THE MONTH. 

Hitting the road for some fun in California? Great idea! But before you crank up the tunes and cruise down the coast, there's an important heads-up for drivers who may be enjoying recreational marijuana. California has an "open container" law that applies to both alcohol and cannabis. Even if you're not actively using marijuana, having an open container of it in your car can lead to a traffic stop and a citation. 

 

FACTS OF THE CASE  (Marin County):  SEARCH and SEIZURE - think again

 A marijuana blunt on the passenger’s lap was an “open container” within the meaning of HSC 11362.3(a)(4), which provided probable cause for the officer to search the passenger compartment of the vehicle. A minor was stopped by police for driving a car with illegally tinted windows. 

During the stop, the San Pablo Police Officer smelled unburnt marijuana and saw a blunt on the passenger’s lap. The officer conducted a search of the vehicle and found a handgun in the glove compartment and an AR-15 rifle in the trunk. 

On appeal, the minor argued that the marijuana blunt was not an “open container” within the meaning of section 11362.3, and thus could not provide the officer with probable cause. 

The Court of Appeal rejected the argument, finding that the plain meaning of an “open container” is one in which there is no barrier to accessing the marijuana inside. Here, the blunt was an open container because the paper wrapping enclosing the marijuana presented no barrier to accessing the marijuana. 

 

FULL OPINION:

The full opinion is available on the court’s website here: https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/A167331.PDF

LIFER ANNUAL BBQ (ECC sponsored) is back after the 4-year "COVID Hiatus": Mark your calendar 6/29/2024

IT'S BACK, after the 4-year COVID Hiatus: MARK your CALENDAR : 6/29/2024 : 

THE 8TH ANNUAL LIFER CELEBRATION BBQ PARTY: 

JOIN US ---->

WHAT: First Post-Covid Lifer Party 2024-Eighth Annual Lifer Celebration 

WHEN: June 29th, 2024 @ Noon until 5PM 

WHAT: ECC LIFER BBQ PARTY 

WHERE: Boisseranc Park 7520 Dale St. Buena Park, CA 90620

 

 ===========GROUP PICTURES BEING TAKEN AT 3PM ========= 

 

Eccher Consulting Company (ECC) is happy to announce that they are hosting the Annual Lifer celebration. All lifers, families, and friends are invited to attend - even the ATTORNEYS (smiley)! 

THE LAW OFFICE OF DIANE T LETARTE WILL BE THERE WITH STAFF TO MEET AND GREET OUR RELEASED CLIENTS AND ALL OTHERS! 

 

 

 

 DIRECTIONS: The park is already reserved. It is on North Dale Street with the major cross-street La Palma Avenue. 1 mile from the I-5/91 Freeway Split. This is a beautiful park with 200-parking spots nearby, 2-playgrounds for kids, 4-tennis/handball courts, 3- basketball courts, swimming pool with 2-life guards, 2-large clean restrooms, dog- friendly, plenty of grass and shade trees. We have 26-tables and 125-chairs, bring a blanket and make it a picnic if you like! Buena Park is normally 80-degrees in June. No alcohol allowed in park. Sorry. 

  FOOD: 600-pieces of Fried Chicken, 600-Nathan’s Kosher Dogs cooked on the spot, 80-Pizzas delivered hourly, 1000-bottles of water and cans of soda, potato salad, coleslaw, chips, fresh vegetables and fruit, plus plenty of sweets.  

Everyone is welcome. If you would like to bring a dish, water, soda, other food, sweets or make a financial donation that would be appreciated to help offset the cost 

 JUST COME AND ENJOY THE CELEBRATION!

The Long awaited BPH California Parole Hearing Process Handbook NOW AVAILABLE

The New Parole Hearing Process Handbook 

The California Board of Parole Hearings (Board) has release its First Parole Hearing Process Handbook available on-line for free. Also included in the Handbook are several forms, including a request for accommodations, Form 1045A (Petition To Advance) and the 1707 form used to register victims with the Office of Victims and Survivors Rights and Services. 

The Handbook is 130+ pages. It maybe downloaded and printed for Loved Ones. Of Note is the LSA (Life Support Alliance) project can print the entire handbook and mail it to any incarcerated person for a donation to cover the cost of printing and mailing, about $35. 

Telephone: 916-402-3750 

Life Support Alliance (LSA) 

9845 Horn Rd #160 

Sacramento, CA 95827 

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

The California Board of Parole Hearings (Board) is a part of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) and is responsible for California’s parole hearing process. The decision to grant parole is a complex one, weighing public safety with an individual's rehabilitation. The Board’s mission is to protect and preserve public safety while ensuring due process to all persons who come under the Board’s jurisdiction. The Board strives to carry out its mission by carefully evaluating each person’s risk and by treating incarcerated persons and their family members, victims, and victims’ family members with dignity and respect.

This new Parole Hearing Process Handbook is designed to empower board members with the most current information and best practices for conducting effective hearings. This handbook is a comprehensive guide to California’s parole hearing process and is intended for anyone who attends a parole hearing or who simply wants to know more about the process. It provides a comprehensive guide to navigating the legalities, assessing risk factors, and evaluating an inmate's readiness for successful reintegration into society. 

The New Parole Hearing Process Handbook Table Of Contents is enumerated below. Once you View or download the Handbook the Table Of Contents is hyperlink to each Chapter for ease of reference. 

Parole Hearing Process Handbook 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................... 5 

 SECTION 1: PAROLE ELIGIBILITY AND DATES ............................ 6 

1.1 Types of Sentences...................................................................…...…6 

1.2 Who is Eligible to Receive a Parole Hearing? ..............................….. …6 

1.3 Parole Eligible Dates..................................................................... .....8  

SECTION 2: THE PAROLE HEARING PROCESS................................ 11 

2.1 Consultations .....................................................................................11 

2.2 Scheduling of Hearings..................................................................…. 12 

2.3 Notifying Participants of Hearing Dates..........................................…...13 

2.4 Deadlines for Notifying the Board of Participation at Hearing……......….14 

2.5 Videoconference and In-Person Hearings ..................................….........15 

2.6 Americans with Disabilities Act – Accommodations Before the Hearing ........17 

2.7 Post-Conviction Report ............................................................................19 

2.8 Incarcerated Person’s Right to Attend and Participate ..........................……19 

2.9 Incarcerated Person’s Right to an Attorney ..............................…................19 

2.10 Incarcerated Person’s Right to Review Non-Confidential Documents.............20 

2.11 Documents Submitted by the Incarcerated Person or Their Attorney..............22 

2.12 Documents Submitted by the Prosecutor...............................................…..27 

2.13 Statements Submitted Before the Hearing by Victims, Victims’ Family Members, and Victim Representatives..............................…..29

 2.14 Written Statements Submitted by the Public........................................…….31 

2.15 Comprehensive Risk Assessments............................................…...........….32 

2.16 Postponing or Waiving the Hearing (Before Week of the Hearing)............…..34 

2.17 Persons Appearing at the Hearing...........................................….............… 36

 2.18 Postponing or Waiving the Hearing (Week of the Hearing)....................…….37

 2.19 Stipulating to Unsuitability..........................................................................38 

2.20 Americans with Disabilities Act – Accommodations at the Hearing ................38 

2.21 Criteria for Parole Suitability......................................................................39 

2.22 General Hearing Procedures......................................................................40 

2.23 Hearing Result ........................................................................................42 

2.24 Hearing Transcript....................................................................................43 

2.25 Americans with Disabilities Act – Grievance Process After the Hearing .......44 

2.26 Post-Board Unit Classification Committee...............................................44 

2.27 Board’s Review of Hearing Panel’s Decision...........................................44 

2.28 Governor’s Review of Hearing Panel’s Decision......................................45 

2.29 En Banc Review ................................................................................. 46 

2.30 Rescission Hearings...............................................................................47 

2.31 Release from CDCR Custody................................................................47 

SECTION 3: CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING PAROLE SUITABILITY...50 

3.1 Legal Standard ......................................................................................50 

3.2 Structured Decision-Making Framework..................................................51 

3.3 Issuing a Decision.................................................................................63 

3.4 Limitations on Parole Suitability Decision Making...................................63 

3.5 Data on Parole Hearing Outcomes and CRAs ........................................64 

SECTION 4: ADVANCING PAROLE HEARING DATES.......................66 

4.1 General .................................................................................... .......66 

4.2 Petitions to Advance....................................................................... ..66 

4.3 Administrative Reviews.......................................................................67 

4.4 Notification of Victims and Victims’ Family Members........................ ...69 

4.5 Review on the Merits ..........................................................................69 

SECTION 5: OTHER TYPES OF BOARD PROCEEDINGS...................71 

5.1 Parole Reconsideration Hearings..........................................................71 

5.2 Medical Parole Hearings......................................................................72 

5.3 Serious Offender Hearings or Extended Term Hearings.........................72 

5.4 Nonviolent Offender Parole Review for Determinately Sentenced Persons........73 

SECTION 6: VICTIMS AND THE PAROLE HEARING PROCESS...............75

 6.1 Introduction...............................................................................................75 

6.2 Definition of Victim, Victim’s Next of Kin, and Victim’s Immediate Family..................76 

6.3 Registering with the Office of Victim and Survivor Rights and Services.......................76 

6.4 Rights of Victims and Victims’ Family Members in the Parole Hearing Process………77 

6.5 Timelines for Requesting to Participate in a Parole Hearing...........................79 

6.6 Scope of a Victim’s Impact Statement.........................................................79 

6.7 Statements Submitted Before the Hearing by Victims, Victims’ Family Members, and Victim Representatives........................................................................................80 

6.8 Written Statements Submitted by the Public..........................................82 

6.9 Videoconference and In-Person Hearings..............................................83 

6.10 Procedures Following a Parole Decision.............................................84 

6.11 Monthly Executive Board Meetings (i.e., En Banc Proceedings)...........86 

6.12 Resources for Victims .....................................................................86 

6.13 Frequently Asked Questions.............................................................86 

SECTION 7: EXECUTIVE BOARD MEETINGS..................................89 

7.1 General............................................................................................89 

7.2 Public Comment on Cases..................................................................89 

7.3 Types of Cases.................................................................................90 

SECTION 8: LEGAL AUTHORITY......................................................93  

SECTION 9: RESOURCES....................................................................94

PEOPLE V. HARDIN 3/4/2024: In a 5-2 Decision California Supreme Court UPHELD State Law that Young Adults (18-25) CAN BE sentenced to Life Without possibility of Parole (LWOP)

PEOPLE v. HARDIN   (2024) S277487   03/04/2024
Second Appellate District, Division Seven  B315434
Los Angeles County Superior Court A893110

Full opinion can be seen (this March 2024) at:
https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S277487.PDF
==========================================================
 

BACKGROUND on this monumental Youth Offender case:

People v. Hardin 2022 California Courts of Appeal (COA) decision:

The case involved Tony Hardin, sentenced to life without parole in 1990 for robbing and murdering a neighbor, Norma Barber, 66, in her apartment in Rowland Heights (Los Angeles County) a year earlier, when he was 25. Hardin stole her jewelry and car keys before strangling her and said later that he had been “desperate for money to buy drugs.” His prosecutors unsuccessfully sought a death sentence for Hardin, who is now 60.

A state appeals court ruled in 2022 that Hardin was entitled to a youthful-offender parole hearing. Permanently denying release in such a case, Justice Dennis Perluss wrote, prevents the state and its parole board from considering research that shows “the human brain — especially those portions responsible for judgment and decision-making — continues to develop into a person’s mid-20s.”

In that 2022 case, the COA had ruled that a provision in California law that denied certain young adults sentenced to life without parole the opportunity for a youth offender parole hearing was unconstitutional. The court found the law did not have a rational basis for excluding this group from consideration for parole and thus violated the Equal Protection Clause.

* **Holding:** The Second Appellate District held that Penal Code section 3051, subdivision (h), violates the Equal Protection Clause because it does not provide a rational basis for treating young adult offenders who committed a special-circumstance murder and were sentenced to life without parole differently from other young adult offenders who committed different serious or violent crimes and received parole-eligible indeterminate life terms, including those that could be the functional equivalent of a life without parole sentence.

* **Reasoning:** The court reasoned that the government's asserted justification for the distinction, namely that young adult offenders who commit special-circumstance murder are more likely to be dangerous than other young adult offenders, is not supported by the evidence. The court found that there is no significant difference in the recidivism rates of young adult offenders who commit special-circumstance murder and other young adult offenders who commit serious or violent crimes.

Other state appeals courts had rejected similar claims and because there were different outcomes in the other state appeals court; the state’s high court (California Supreme Court) agreed to take up Hardin’s case and resolve the issue.

====================================================
The California Supreme Court's 2024 Decision was published on Monday 3/4/2024

See below for a quick summary. The Full Opinion is in the Above link.

California Supreme Court reverses the Courts of Appeal and upholds life-without-parole (LWOP) sentences for adults under 26 years of age.

“This conclusion does not turn on this court’s judgments about what constitutes sound sentencing policy,” Justice Leondra Kruger wrote in the majority opinion. “It turns on the deference we owe to the policy choices made through the democratic process by the people of California and their elected representatives.”   

She was joined by Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero and Justices Carol Corrigan, Martin Jenkins and Joshua Groban.


YOUTH OFFENDER LAW BACKGROUND:

California’s youth offender parole statute offers opportunities for early release to certain persons who are incarcerated for crimes they committed at a young age. (Pen. Code, §§ 3051, 4801.) When it was first enacted in 2013, the statute applied only to individuals who committed their crimes before the age of 18; the purpose of the statute was to align California law with then-recent court decisions identifying Eighth Amendment limitations on life without parole sentences for juvenile offenders. In more recent years, however, the Legislature has expanded the statute to include certain young adult offenders as well. Under the current version of the statute, most persons incarcerated for a crime committed between ages 18 and 25 are entitled to a parole hearing during the 15th, 20th, or 25th year of their incarceration. (Pen. Code, § 3051, subd. (b).) But not all youthful offenders are eligible for parole hearings. The statute excludes, among others, offenders who are serving sentences of life in prison without the possibility of parole for a crime committed after the age of 18. (Id., subd. (h).)

Justices Goodwin Liu and Kelli Evans dissented. Noting that more than three-quarters of the 3,000 prisoners now serving life-without-parole sentences in California are either Black or Hispanic, Evans said the 2013 state law that the court upheld “embodies racial bias that has plagued our criminal and juvenile justice systems since their inception.” She urged the Legislature to change the law.

Justices Goodwin Liu states:

Today’s opinion rationalizes the exclusion by imputing to the Legislature a purpose — calibrating “culpability and the appropriate level of punishment for certain very serious crimes” (maj. opn., ante, at p. 26) — that is nowhere stated in the statute or its legislative history. It then posits that special- circumstance murder is generally distinguishable from simple first degree murder in terms of culpability (id. at pp. 33–42) despite strong evidence to the contrary. According to the court, nothing more is required under rational basis review. Although I agree that rational basis review applies to Hardin’s claim, I disagree with how the court has applied it here.

Attorney Greg Wolff, who filed arguments on behalf of Human Rights Watch and other advocacy groups, said the ruling was “disappointing but not surprising. Persons sentenced to life without parole for crimes committed when they were young deserve a chance to prove they’ve changed.”

Kent Scheidegger, legal director of the conservative Criminal Justice Legal Foundation, said a lower-court ruling that would have allowed parole hearings “unconstitutionally amended state law to give some of California’s worst murderers a chance for release. In today’s decision, the California Supreme Court confirmed that such power belongs to the people, not the courts.”

Editor's Note: 

Justices Goodwin Liu and Kelli Evans dissented with over 60 pages of the 118-page opinion, with what I considered to be a well-reasoned opinion.

Supreme Court dissenting opinions in cases like these can sometimes become the majority view later on because they address evolving societal values and legal interpretations. These dissents may reflect a more progressive perspective on the Constitution or social justice issues. Over time, public opinion can shift, and new justices appointed to the court may hold different legal philosophies. If the arguments in the dissent are well-reasoned and persuasive, they can influence future cases and eventually lead to a reversal of the original decision.

 

IT'S BACK, after Covid: MARK your CALENDAR : 6/29/2024 : THE 8TH ANNUAL LIFER CELEBRATION BBQ PARTY: JOIN US

WHAT: First Post-Covid Lifer Party 2024-Eighth Annual Lifer Celebration 

WHEN: June 29th 2024 Noon until 5PM WHAT: ECC LIFER BBQ PARTY 

WHERE: Boisseranc Park 7520 Dale St. Buena Park, CA 90620 

 

 ===========GROUP PICTURES BEING TAKEN AT 3PM =========

 

Eccher Consulting Company (ECC) is happy to announce that they are hosting the Annual Lifer celebration. All lifers, families, and friends are invited to attend - even the ATTORNEYS (smiley)! 

THE LAW OFFICE OF DIANE T LETARTE WILL BE THERE WITH STAFF TO MEET AND GREET OUR RELEASED CLIENTS AND ALL OTHERS! 

 DIRECTIONS: 

The park is already reserved. It is on North Dale Street with the major cross-street La Palma Avenue. 1 mile from the I-5/91 Freeway Split. This is a beautiful park with 200-parking spots nearby, 2-playgrounds for kids, 4-tennis/handball courts, 3- basketball courts, swimming pool with 2-life guards, 2-large clean restrooms, dog- friendly, plenty of grass and shade trees. We have 26-tables and 125-chairs, bring a blanket and make it a picnic if you like! Buena Park is normally 80-degrees in June.

 No alcohol allowed in park. Sorry. 

 FOOD:  

600-pieces of Fried Chicken, 

600-Nathan’s Kosher Dogs cooked on the spot, 

80-Pizzas delivered hourly, 

1000-bottles of water and cans of soda, potato salad, coleslaw, chips, fresh vegetables and fruit, plus plenty of sweets. 

Everyone is welcome. 

If you would like to bring a dish, water, soda, other food, sweets or make a financial donation that would be appreciated to help offset the cost

                       JUST COME AND ENJOY THE CELEBRATION!

 

 FUN PHOTOS FROM PRIOR (2019, pre-covid)  LIFER BBQ PARTIES:

Peopel v. Hardin (S277487) : Equal Protection issue for Youth Offenders and the fairly New CSC Justices

People v. Hardin (S277487): YOUTH OFFENDER PAROLE HEARINGS Availability for LWOP who committed their crime while 25 years old or under.  

This case argues that excluding Hardin from youth offender parole consideration while allowing a 17-year-old who committed special-circumstance murder to be eligible violates his right to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. 

Basically---> Does Penal Code section 3051, subdivision (h), violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by excluding young adults sentenced to life without the possibility of parole from youth offender parole consideration, while young adults sentenced to parole-eligible terms are entitled to such consideration? 

 The court granted review in January of this year. It later asked for supplemental briefing that suggests it’s open to revising the way it analyzes equal protection claims. 

 NOTE: This case was filed on October 11, 2023, after Patricia Guerrero became Chief Justice.  

The "open" Question is How will the New Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero impact potential criminal justice reform during her term? We present the facts you decide. 

 Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero is making history as the **first Latina** to serve as the **29th Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court**. Her journey to the helm of the state's highest court is one marked by dedication, achievement, and a commitment to justice. Born in the Imperial Valley, California, Guerrero graduated magna cum laude from UC Berkeley and earned her Juris Doctor degree from Stanford Law School. 

 Throughout her career, Guerrero has championed issues of fairness, equality, and access to justice. She is known for her thoughtful and nuanced approach to legal issues, considering the broader societal impact of her decisions.  

FUN FACTS: She is a registered Democrat. She is married and has two children. She is fluent in Spanish. 

It's important to note that Chief Justice Guerrero's impact is still unfolding. Assessing her long-term legacy will require observing her future decisions, initiatives, and how she navigates the complex legal and political landscape of California. However, her early commitment to diversity, access to justice, and thoughtful jurisprudence suggests a promising tenure that could leave a lasting mark on the state's legal system. 

Guerrero's tenure has not been without its challenges. She has faced criticism from some conservative groups for her decisions on issues like affirmative action and criminal justice reform. 

 Guerrero has actively promoted diversity within the judicial system, appointing qualified judges from underrepresented communities to various courts. This includes the historic appointment of the first openly LGBTQ+ Justice to the California Supreme Court, Justice Leondra Kruger 

She has also emphasized the importance of civic education and public engagement with the judiciary, particularly focusing on reaching out to marginalized communities. 

 

 LET'S KEEP A CLOSE WATCH ON THE PEOPLE V. HARDIN CASE FOR OUR LWOP YOUTH OFFENDERS ! 

 

 HAPPY NEW YEAR!!!!