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.