People v. Baker
20 Cal. App. 5th 711
| Cal. Ct. App. 5th | 2018Background
- Defendant Jeffrey A. Baker (age 50 at offense, 53 at sentencing) was convicted of: oral copulation of his six‑year‑old niece (Pen. Code § 288.7(b)) and two counts of lewd acts (§ 288(a)).
- Victim disclosed Defendant licked her genital area, touched her, and kissed her; forensic testing found a minor DNA profile consistent with Defendant on genital swabs.
- Statute § 288.7(b) mandates an indeterminate 15‑years‑to‑life term for oral copulation or penetration of a child 10 or younger; trial court believed the sentence mandatory and imposed 15‑to‑life on count 1 (concurrent 6‑year terms on counts 2 & 3).
- At sentencing the trial judge stated the mandatory 15‑to‑life was "absolutely disproportionate," invited Defendant to appeal, and (erroneously) said the court could not decline to impose the statute’s mandatory term on Eighth Amendment grounds.
- On appeal Defendant argued (1) the trial court misunderstood its authority to avoid imposing unconstitutional sentences, (2) the 15‑to‑life sentence is cruel/unusual under both federal and state constitutions as applied to him, and (3) trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to object.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Baker) | Defendant's Argument (People) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court misunderstood its authority and whether remand for resentencing is required | Trial court thought it lacked authority to avoid imposing an unconstitutional mandatory sentence; remand needed so court can exercise that authority | People concede the trial court misunderstood but argue remand unnecessary because appellate court can decide constitutionality de novo | Remand unnecessary; appellate court will decide the Eighth/State‑const. claim de novo |
| Whether the 15‑years‑to‑life term under § 288.7(b) is cruel or unusual under California Constitution (article I, § 17) as applied | Sentence is grossly disproportionate given Baker’s limited record, low recidivism risk, and facts of the offense | Statute is a legislatively justified severe penalty for particularly heinous sex offenses against very young children; comparable punishments exist in CA and other states | Not cruel or unusual under state constitution; does not shock conscience given offense, offender, and comparative punishments |
| Whether the 15‑years‑to‑life term violates the Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual) as applied | As applied, the sentence is excessive and grossly disproportionate to the conduct and Defendant’s culpability | Federal proportionality standard is narrow; Defendant’s conduct and abuse of trust make the sentence permissible | Not grossly disproportionate under the Eighth Amendment; federal claim fails |
| Whether counsel’s failure to object on Eighth/State constitutional grounds was ineffective assistance | Failure to object was deficient and prejudicial | Any objection would have been meritless because the sentence is constitutionally sound; thus no prejudice | Counsel not ineffective because the constitutional challenge lacks merit; no relief warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Rodriguez, 14 Cal.3d 639 (rejecting facial attack on indeterminate sentence under § 288; permitting as‑applied review)
- In re Lynch, 8 Cal.3d 410 (establishes California three‑part proportionality analysis for article I, § 17)
- People v. Dillon, 34 Cal.3d 441 (focuses on particular facts/offender in proportionality review)
- People v. Cornett, 53 Cal.4th 1261 (discusses § 288.7 and legislative intent increasing penalties for younger victims)
- Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (clarifies Eighth Amendment narrow proportionality principle)
- Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957 (upholds mandatory severe sentence absent gross disproportionality)
- Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277 (historical precedent on proportionality; later Court limited its scope)
- People v. Reyes, 246 Cal.App.4th 62 (applies proportionality analysis to sexual offenses)
- People v. Wingo, 14 Cal.3d 169 (separation of powers; courts defer to legislature in defining crimes and penalties)
- People v. Hamlin, 170 Cal.App.4th 1412 (appellate de novo review of proportionality claims; remand unnecessary when court can decide as a matter of law)