Slip Opinion
Cal. Ct. App.2013Background
- On March 13, 2008, 16‑year‑old Marcos Sanchez and codefendant Pedro R. walked repeatedly in front of 18‑year‑old Ricardo R.’s house; witnesses heard the two say they were “going to kill” or “shoot” someone. Ricardo was shot once in the head and died.
- Witnesses placed Sanchez at the scene wearing a latex ("doctor") glove, touching a gun in his waistband; Pedro’s home later yielded a .357 revolver (one expended cartridge) and a latex glove.
- Sanchez was charged with first degree murder (Pen. Code §187) and conspiracy to commit murder (§182), gang enhancement (§186.22(b)(1)), and multiple firearm enhancements (§12022.53). A jury convicted him and found multiple firearm and gang allegations true.
- Trial court sentenced Sanchez to a mandatory aggregate term of 50 years to life (25-to-life for murder plus consecutive 25-to-life for discharge causing death); other counts stayed. He received 998 days’ custody credit and was ordered to pay $6,382.17 to the Victim Compensation Board jointly with Pedro.
- On appeal (after Supreme Court remand to consider Miller v. Alabama) Sanchez challenged (1) sufficiency of evidence for conspiracy, (2) that his 50‑to‑life sentence was cruel and unusual given his youth (16 years, 8 days), and (3) clerical errors in the abstract of judgment regarding custody credits and restitution.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Sanchez) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for conspiracy to commit murder | Evidence (walked together, prior fight, gang affiliation, statements about shooting, glove/gun, recovered revolver with expended cartridge, gang expert opinion) supports an agreement to kill | No meeting or express agreement proved; identifications unreliable | Conviction affirmed — substantial circumstantial evidence supports an inferred agreement |
| Cruel and unusual punishment under Eighth Amendment/Cal. Const. art. I, §17 | 50‑to‑life is not LWOP and is proportionate given the deliberate, gang‑motivated ambush and serious facts | 50‑to‑life is a de facto LWOP for a 16‑year‑old (may die before parole eligibility); Miller and other juvenile jurisprudence require consideration of youth | Sentence upheld — Miller distinguished because sentence is not mandatory LWOP; facts and gravity outweigh youth; not one of the rare disproportionate cases |
| Custody credit calculation | Court awarded 998 days | Sanchez contends he served 999 days (arrest to sentencing inclusive) | Modify abstract to award 999 days actual custody credit |
| Restitution/joint liability and payee on abstract | Trial court orally ordered joint and several restitution to Victim Compensation Board | Abstract incorrectly listed payee as "victim(s)" and omitted joint/several language | Modify abstract to reflect $6,382.17 joint & several restitution payable to California Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (U.S. 2012) (mandatory LWOP for juvenile homicide offenders unconstitutional; courts must account for youth)
- Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (U.S. 2010) (categorical ban on LWOP for nonhomicide juvenile offenders)
- Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (U.S. 2005) (death penalty unconstitutional for crimes committed under age 18)
- In re Lynch, 8 Cal.3d 410 (Cal. 1972) (framework for evaluating cruel or unusual punishment under state constitution)
- People v. Mendez, 188 Cal.App.4th 47 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) (sentences that function as de facto LWOP for juveniles may violate Eighth Amendment)