On February 13, 2026, advocates for California's most overlooked incarcerated population received devastating news: Senate Bill 672, the Youth Rehabilitation and Opportunity Act, would not move forward this legislative session. After passing the California Senate by a 24–11 vote, surviving committee battles, and amassing support from the Anti-Recidivism Coalition, Human Rights Watch, Latino Justice, and hundreds of families of incarcerated people — the bill was quietly shelved.
This article explains what SB 672 was, why it failed, what legal tools remain available RIGHT NOW for individuals aged 18–25 who received Life Without the Possibility of Parole (LWOP) sentences, and what the strategic path forward looks like for 2027–2028.
I. What Was SB 672? Closing the "25-Year Gap"
California has spent the past decade systematically recognizing that young people who commit crimes deserve a second look — not automatic release, but a fair review. That legislative arc began with SB 260 (2013) and SB 261 (2015), which created Youth Offender Parole Hearings for those under 18 or under 23 at the time of their offense. AB 1308 (2017) expanded that ceiling broadly to age 26 — but critically, all of these laws retained a carve-out: anyone sentenced to LWOP who was 18 or older at the time of their offense remained categorically excluded. SB 394 (2018) carved one narrow exception, opening LWOP parole eligibility specifically to those who were under 18 at the time of their crime, consistent with the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Miller v. Alabama.
But every one of those laws left one category out: young adults, aged 18–25, who received LWOP sentences. These individuals — numbering more than 5,000 in California prisons — committed their crimes after their 18th birthday, placing them just outside every existing relief law. SB 672 was designed specifically to close that gap.
"SB 672 was not a get-out-of-jail-free card. It was a get-in-the-door card — the right to ask a board of experts, after 25 years, whether you are still a danger."
Under the bill's framework (amending Penal Code § 3051), a person sentenced to LWOP for a controlling offense committed at age 25 or younger would become eligible for a Youth Offender Parole Hearing after serving at least 25 years of continuous incarceration. The Board of Parole Hearings would retain full discretion to deny parole. Victims retained all notification and participation rights. No one would be released automatically. The bill simply said: after a quarter century, a human being deserves to be heard.
The science backed it. Neuroscience has established conclusively that the prefrontal cortex — the part of the brain governing impulse control, risk assessment, and long-term decision-making — does not fully mature until the mid-to-late twenties. This is the same science that drove Miller v. Alabama (2012), Roper v. Simmons (2005), and California's own People v. Franklin (2016). SB 672 was not compassion divorced from data — it was compassion validated by data.
II. Why It Failed — And Why That Is Not the End
The bill's collapse was not a referendum on its merits. It was a casualty of political timing and legislative strategy. As the advocacy coalition acknowledged in their February 2026 statement, the bill had been subjected to a series of amendments during the Assembly process that would have excluded individuals convicted of domestic violence offenses or crimes involving multiple deaths. Rather than pass a gutted version that would betray the people it was supposed to help, advocates made the difficult — and, in this attorney's view, correct — decision to stand down and regroup.
This is not the first time California's LWOP reform movement has faced defeat before victory. SB 9 (2012), which allowed resentencing for juvenile LWOP offenders, took multiple cycles before it became law. The advocates behind SB 672 have already announced they are preparing for the 2027–2028 legislative cycle with a new, stronger bill. The people serving LWOP today are not forgotten. They are waiting.
⚖️ ATTORNEY TIP If your client is one of the 5,000+ individuals serving LWOP for an offense committed between ages 18–25, document their rehabilitation record NOW. Certificates of completion, educational degrees, vocational training, self-help programming participation, disciplinary-free years (115-free), psychological evaluations, and letters of support from staff are all building blocks for the next bill — and for any existing hearing mechanism that may apply.
III. What Legal Tools Exist TODAY for 18–25 LWOP Prisoners
While SB 672 is dormant, other legal pathways remain available and can be aggressively pursued. The failure of one bill does not mean the absence of all remedies.
1. Gubernatorial Commutation (Article V, § 8 of the California Constitution)
The Governor of California retains the power to commute any sentence, including LWOP. Commutations are rare but not impossible — Governor Newsom has granted commutations to individuals with long records of rehabilitation. The process is formal, requires a thorough application through the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), and — for LWOP sentences — requires a recommendation by the Board of Parole Hearings. This is a viable, if narrow, path.
2. Habeas Corpus Based on Ineffective Assistance of Counsel (IAC)
If your client's original trial counsel failed to adequately investigate and present evidence of youth, trauma, or developmental immaturity at sentencing, a habeas corpus petition under Penal Code § 1473 may be available.(i.e. False evidence, new evidence, false testimony, expert testimony issues, etc.) California courts, influenced by Miller and Franklin, have shown increasing willingness to grant relief when the original sentencer never had the opportunity to weigh the mitigating factors now recognized by law.
3. Resentencing Under Penal Code § 1172.1 (Former § 1170(d))
The CDCR Secretary, the Board of Parole Hearings, or a district attorney may now refer an LWOP case back to the sentencing court for resentencing. Courts have authority to impose a lesser sentence in the interest of justice. This provision has been substantially strengthened and broadened since 2022 and should be assessed for every long-term LWOP client.
4. Federal Habeas Corpus (28 U.S.C. § 2254)
If there are Eighth Amendment or due process claims arising from the original sentence — particularly if the sentencing court failed to individualize the LWOP determination based on the defendant's youth — federal habeas corpus remains an avenue, subject to AEDPA's procedural requirements and the exhaustion doctrine.
IV. The Moral and Constitutional Stakes
The United States remains the only country in the world that sentences individuals to life without parole for crimes committed as teenagers or young adults. This is not a statistic; it is an international human rights indictment. The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights has condemned the practice. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child prohibits it for those under 18.
SB 672 was California's chance to lead — again — in recognizing that a sentence of death-by-incarceration imposed on a 20-year-old is categorically different from the same sentence imposed on a 40-year-old. The brain science, the recidivism data, and basic principles of human dignity all compel the same conclusion: individualized review, after decades of demonstrated change, is not radical. It is rational.
"Those who made it home have shown us the power and possibility of second chances. The failure of SB 672 is deeply personal — but it is not permanent." — SB 672 Advocacy Coalition, February 2026
In Pennsylvania, where juvenile LWOP sentences have been revisited following Miller v. Alabama, researchers found that of the first cohort resentenced and released, only 1.14% reoffended. This data must be placed before every Board commissioner, every district attorney, and every legislator who believes that warehousing an aging, rehabilitated person enhances public safety. It does not. According to the Public Policy Institute of California, the average annual cost to incarcerate one person in a California state prison reached approximately $127,800 in 2026 — nearly $128,000 per year to house someone who, by every clinical measure, no longer poses a public safety risk. It is not justice. It is symbolic punishment billed to the taxpayer.
V. Conclusion: The Next Bill Is Being Written
For families and loved ones of individuals serving LWOP sentences for crimes committed between ages 18 and 25 — do not give up. The advocates who fought for SB 672 have explicitly committed to a new bill for the 2027–2028 legislative session. That bill will be stronger, better prepared, and informed by the lessons of this cycle.
In the meantime, every available legal remedy must be explored. If your loved one has not had a formal legal review of their sentence in the past two years — including under § 1172.1 resentencing, compassionate release under AB 960, or habeas corpus — that review is overdue.
The door is not closed. It is waiting to be opened by the right key.
=======================================================================
NOTE: Our law office no longer does Court re-sentencing but wanted to make sure the information was published to give hope to our LWOP population. Other attorneys will gladly assist in this area of the law. We cannot refer a law office, at this time, due to potential Liability to our Law office.
