42 Cal.App.5th 477
Cal. Ct. App.2019Background
- Petitioner Eugene Jones, convicted of a 1994 murder, is serving life without parole (LWOP) for crimes he committed at age 19.
- Jones sought resentencing under Penal Code §1170(d)(2), which permits LWOP prisoners who were under 18 at offense and incarcerated ≥15 years to petition for recall and resentencing.
- The superior court construed his filing as a habeas petition and denied it; Jones petitioned the Court of Appeal.
- Jones argued §1170(d)(2)’s age cutoff violates equal protection by excluding 18–25 year-olds who he says are developmentally similar to juveniles.
- The Court of Appeal denied relief, holding juvenile offenders (under 18) are not similarly situated to adult offenders and the Legislature has a rational basis to draw the line at 18.
- Concurring opinion (Pollak, P. J.) agreed denial was required here but observed that a related statute (§3051) expanding parole-review to offenders up to 25 raises distinct equal protection questions for LWOP prisoners and suggested legislative reconsideration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Penal Code §1170(d)(2) violates equal protection by excluding offenders age 18–25 from LWOP resentencing available to those under 18 | Jones: 18–25 year-olds have similar developmental deficits and rehabilitation prospects as under-18s and thus are similarly situated | State: juveniles (under 18) are constitutionally different; Legislature may draw line at 18 for sentencing relief | Denied — 18+ offenders are not similarly situated to juveniles for §1170(d)(2); drawing a bright line at 18 is rational and permissible |
| Whether Penal Code §3051’s exclusion of LWOP offenders who were 18–25 at offense violates equal protection (raised in concurrence) | Jones/concurring justice: §3051’s purpose is reassessment of maturity; those 18–25 serving LWOP are similarly situated and should get parole review | State: distinction in §3051 tied to statutory design; issue not decided here | Not decided — concurring opinion flagged the equal protection concern and recommended legislative reconsideration but did not rule on §3051’s constitutionality |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012) (juveniles are constitutionally different for sentencing; diminished culpability and greater prospects for reform)
- Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010) (Eighth Amendment bars LWOP for nonhomicide juvenile offenders)
- Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005) (Eighth Amendment bars death penalty for offenders under 18; juveniles lack maturity)
- People v. Brown, 54 Cal.4th 314 (2012) (equal protection inquiry asks whether groups are similarly situated for purposes of challenged law)
- People v. Edwards, 34 Cal.App.5th 183 (2019) (discusses equal protection and legislative classifications in sentencing context)
- People v. Argeta, 210 Cal.App.4th 1478 (2012) (discusses reasonableness of drawing line at age 18 for sentencing purposes)
- People v. Castel, 12 Cal.App.5th 1321 (2017) (rational-basis review governs disparities in criminal sentencing classifications)