People v. Abundio
221 Cal. App. 4th 1211
Cal. Ct. App.2013Background
- Wong, a marijuana dealer, was killed by Abundio during an unprovoked, premeditated robbery plan.
- Appellant had prior marijuana purchases from Wong; there was no prior animosity.
- On Dec 19, 2009, Abundio and three friends, after manipulating meeting logistics, lured Wong to a location for robbery.
- Abundio used a knife to stab Wong multiple times, killing him as he pleaded for mercy.
- First trial ended in a hung jury; a second jury convicted Abundio of first-degree murder with special circumstances of robbery and weapon use; he was sentenced to life without parole plus one year.
- Appellant appeals the sentence as cruel or unusual punishment under the California Constitution and Dillon, arguing disproportionate punishment given his age and circumstances.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether life without parole for first-degree murder is cruel or unusual punishment | Abundio argues Dillon requires striking the special circumstance | State argues Dillon does not control nonjuvenile cases; disproportionate punishment not shown | Not cruel and/or unusual; Dillon distinguishable; sentence upheld. |
| Whether Dillon-based analysis applies to this adult defendant | Dillon framework should apply due to immaturity | Record shows adulthood and no Dillon-level immaturity | Dillon analysis did not compel striking; not applicable given adult age and facts. |
| Whether Graham/Miller limits apply to an 18-year-old at the time of offense | Argues for protection under Graham/Miller due to near-juvenile status | Argeta controls; threshold line at 18; not cruel/unusual under Graham/Miller | Not cruel and/or unusual; Argeta controls this age boundary. |
| Whether trial court abused discretion in denying striking the special circumstance | Two juvenile contacts but escalation to murder shows severity | Totality of circumstances supports non-strike | Discretion properly exercised; no reversal. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Dillon, 34 Cal.3d 441 (Cal. 1983) (felony murder sentence for an unusually immature teen violated constitutional limits)
- People v. Gonzales, 54 Cal.4th 1234 (Cal. 2012) (Cruel/unusual punishment analysis requires proportionality to culpability)
- People v. Argeta, 210 Cal.App.4th 1478 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012) (limits on Graham/Miller applicability for near-18-year-olds)
- People v. Carmony, 127 Cal.App.4th 1066 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005) (rare cases of cruel/unusual punishment not present here)
- People v. Mantanez, 98 Cal.App.4th 354 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002) (tools for determining proportionality in sentencing)