Lucero v. People
2017 CO 49
| Colo. | 2017Background
- Fifteen-year-old Guy Lucero was tried as an adult for a 2005 drive-by shooting; jury convicted him of conspiracy to commit first-degree murder, attempted first-degree murder, and two counts of second-degree assault.
- Trial court imposed consecutive term-of-years sentences (32, 32, 10, 10) aggravated as crimes of violence, for an aggregate of 84 years.
- Lucero moved under Colo. Crim. P. 35(b) in 2010 seeking a sentence reduction, arguing Graham v. Florida required relief because his aggregate 84-year term was effectively life without parole (LWOP).
- Trial court denied the motion after a hearing; Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed treating the claim under Rule 35(c), finding Lucero would be parole-eligible at 57 and thus had a "meaningful opportunity for release."
- Colorado Supreme Court granted certiorari and affirmed, holding Graham and Miller do not apply to aggregate consecutive term-of-years sentences and that the court of appeals properly treated the claim as Rule 35(c).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Graham and Miller extend to aggregate consecutive term-of-years sentences that amount in practice to LWOP | Lucero: 84-year aggregate is functionally LWOP; Graham/Miller reasoning should invalidate de facto LWOP terms | State: Graham/Miller target the specific sentence of LWOP for a single offense, not consecutive term-of-years for multiple convictions | Court: Graham and Miller apply to the specific sentence of life without parole for a single conviction and do not invalidate aggregate consecutive term-of-years sentences; affirmed conviction and sentence |
| Whether Lucero’s claim should be reviewed under Rule 35(b) or Rule 35(c) | Lucero: court of appeals erred by sua sponte treating his Rule 35(b) motion as Rule 35(c), implicating party-presentation concerns | State/Ct. of Appeals: Substance of claim challenged constitutionality of sentence, which fits Rule 35(c) postconviction review | Court: No error — the claim alleges a constitutional sentencing violation and properly falls under Rule 35(c) |
| Whether attempted murder counts as a "nonhomicide" offense under Graham | Lucero: attempted murder should be treated as nonhomicide for Graham purposes | State: disputed; court noted question but did not need to resolve it | Court: Did not decide because it concluded Graham/Miller do not apply to aggregate term-of-years sentences |
| Whether Lucero was denied a meaningful opportunity for release | Lucero: he would die in prison before any realistic parole chance | State: Lucero will be parole-eligible at age 57, within natural life expectancy | Court: Assessment of parole eligibility is not dispositive for applying Graham/Miller because those cases do not govern aggregate consecutive term-of-years sentences; nevertheless, parole eligibility at 57 supported conclusion that sentence was not de facto LWOP in concurrence |
Key Cases Cited
- Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (categorical Eighth Amendment rule forbidding life without parole for juvenile nonhomicide offenders; requires a meaningful opportunity for release)
- Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (Eighth Amendment forbids mandatory life without parole for juveniles; sentencing authorities must consider youth and mitigating circumstances)
- Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (juvenile death penalty unconstitutional; juveniles have diminished culpability and greater capacity for change)
- Close v. People, 48 P.3d 528 (Colo. 2002) (separate proportionality review for each consecutive sentence; aggregate total not the proper basis for Eighth Amendment disproportionality challenge)