People v. Blackwell
202 Cal. App. 4th 144
Cal. Ct. App.2011Background
- Bradley Blackwell, a minor at the time, was charged in adult court via direct filing under §707(d) for murder with felony-murder special circumstances, burglary of an inhabited dwelling, and attempted burglary/robbery.
- A jury convicted him of first-degree murder with special circumstances, burglary, and attempted burglary; firearm enhancements were rejected.
- The court sentenced him to life without the possibility of parole (LWOP), though it acknowledged discretion to impose 25 years to life under §190.5 for 16–17-year-olds.
- The prosecution relied on direct filing in adult court based on §707(d)(2)(A), which allows such filing when the offense would carry life imprisonment if committed by an adult.
- Appellant argued, first, that Apprendi requires a jury finding on age to impose an adult punishment, and second, that LWOP for a juvenile murder defendant could be cruel and unusual under Graham, and third, that the court abused its discretion in imposing LWOP.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Apprendi requires a jury finding on age for an adult sentence | People contends no age finding is required | Blackwell argues age must be jury-determined | No Apprendi violation; no jury finding on age required for this direct filing scenario. |
| Whether LWOP for a juvenile murderer violates the Eighth Amendment | People argues Graham does not categorically prohibit LWOP for homicide by older juveniles | Blackwell contends LWOP for a teen murderer is disproportionate | Graham does not categorically bar LWOP for 16–17-year-old special-circumstance murder; not grossly disproportionate here. |
| Whether trial court abused discretion in selecting LWOP over 25-to-life | People asserts court could choose LWOP as presumptive | Blackwell argues the court erred in not applying 25-to-life | No abuse of discretion; court could choose LWOP given juvenile history and offense. |
Key Cases Cited
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (U.S. Supreme Court 2000) (any fact increasing punishment beyond the statutory maximum must be proved to a jury)
- Cardona v. Superior Court, 177 Cal.App.4th 516 (Cal. App. Dist. 1 2009) (fitness/duration questions not 'elements' affecting punishment and Apprendi satisfied by jury verdict)
- Nguyen v. Superior Court, 222 Cal.App.3d 1612 (Cal. App. 1990) (age is not an element of murder; direct filing permitted)
- Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 46 (U.S. Supreme Court 2010) (categorical prohibition on LWOP for nonhomicide juvenile offenses; limited applicability to homicide context)
- Demirdjian v. Superior Court, 144 Cal.App.4th 10 (Cal. App. 2006) (discussion of LWOP vs. 25-to-life for juveniles)
- Ybarra v. Superior Court, 166 Cal.App.4th 1069 (Cal. App. 2008) (presumptive LWOP for 16–17; discretion to impose 25-to-life)
- Guinn v. Superior Court, 28 Cal.App.4th 1130 (Cal. App. 1994) (case recognizing discretion to impose 25-to-life for juvenile special-circumstance murder)
- Harris v. Superior Court, 5 Cal.4th 813 (Cal. App. 1993) (juvenile direct filing; preclusion principles for age challenge)