Some Elderly Law to keep in mind when reviewing the recent People v. Mills, Case #: B334998, Court: CA Court of Appeal, District: 2 DCA, Division: 6, Opinion Date: 09/09/2025
In California, a person sentenced as a "two-striker" can be eligible for elderly parole, but under a different set of criteria than those not sentenced under the Three Strikes Law.
Here is a breakdown of the two programs:
1. Statutory Elderly Parole Program:
· Eligibility: This program applies to inmates who are 50 years of age or older and have served at least 20 years of continuous incarceration on their current sentence.
· Exclusion for Two-Strikers: Individuals sentenced under California's Three Strikes Law for a second or third strike are excluded from this statutory program.
2. Court-Ordered Elderly Parole Program:
· Eligibility: This program, created by a federal court order, applies to inmates who are 60 years of age or older and have served a minimum of 25 years of continuous incarceration.
· Inclusion for Two-Strikers: Unlike the statutory program, this court-ordered program does not exclude individuals sentenced under the Three Strikes Law. Therefore, a two-striker can be considered for parole under this program.
Key Differences and Considerations:
· Age and Time Served: The two programs have different age and time-served requirements. A two-striker cannot access the earlier eligibility of 50 years of age and 20 years served. They must meet the criteria of 60 years of age and 25 years served.
· Hearing Standards: At a parole suitability hearing for elderly parole, the Board of Parole Hearings (BPH) is required to give special consideration to factors such as the inmate's advanced age, time served, and any diminished physical condition. The central question remains whether the inmate poses a current, unreasonable risk of danger to public safety.
================= NEW CASE LAW ===========
Case Name: People v. Mills, Case #: B334998, Court: CA Court of Appeal, District: 2 DCA, Division: 6, Opinion Date: 09/09/2025
Dismissing a strike so that a defendant might be eligible for elderly parole is not a lawful reason to remove a defendant from the letter and spirit of the Three Strikes rule or the fair import of People v. Romero (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497. The Court of Appeal states that [d]oing so here would work a radical exception to the Three Strikes rule. This would be the antithesis of judicial restraint.
Summary of the case People v. Mills, Case #: B334998, decided by the California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 6 on September 9, 2025:
· Case Background: Jack Mills, a
"three-strikes" offender, was originally sentenced to 110 years to
life. A trial court later reduced his sentence to 43 years to life by striking
one of his two "strikes." Mills, who is 67 years old, appealed,
arguing that the trial court's decision was based on a mistaken belief that he
would be eligible for "elderly parole" if one strike were eliminated.
He contended that had the court known he was ineligible, it would have
sentenced him differently, possibly by striking the remaining strike.
· Elderly Parole Ineligibility: The court found that
prisoners sentenced under the Three Strikes Law (specifically, under a
provision of Penal Code § 3055) are not eligible for "elderly
parole."
· Appellate Court's Reasoning:
o The court rejected Mills's argument that the trial court was confused about his parole eligibility. It noted that the trial court's comments were prefaced with "if," indicating an understanding of the conditions for parole.
o The court stated that reversing the trial court's order based on speculation about what it might have done is not a proper basis for reversal.
o The court held that dismissing a strike solely to make a defendant eligible for "elderly parole" is an unlawful reason and would be a "radical exception" to the Three Strikes rule, which would be an "antithesis of judicial restraint."
o The court also commented on the horrific nature of Mills's crimes, which included a home invasion robbery and the attempted murder of a victim who was shot in the head at close range.
o
The court affirmed the judgment and did not order a remand for
re-computation of credits, noting that this is a matter for prison officials,
which the defendant can challenge in the trial court if necessary.
· Conclusion: The court affirmed the judgment, effectively denying Mills's appeal and upholding his 43-years-to-life sentence.
