26 Cal. App. 5th 985
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2018Background
- Defendant Richard Tyrell Carter (age 17 at offense) was convicted by jury of second-degree murder, felon in possession of a firearm, and a true finding that he personally used and discharged a firearm causing death; trial court found a prior robbery strike.
- Sentenced under Three Strikes to an aggregate term of 55 years to life (15-to-life doubled to 30 under Three Strikes, plus consecutive 25-to-life firearm enhancement); prosecution conceded this was the functional equivalent of LWOP.
- At sentencing the trial court performed a Romero (People v. Superior Court) analysis, considered defendant's youth but declined to strike the prior conviction, citing lack of demonstrated willingness to change.
- Defendant argued the 55-to-life term constituted cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment for a juvenile offender.
- While appeal was pending, controlling developments occurred: People v. Gutierrez (no presumption in favor of LWOP for juveniles), and People v. Lara (Proposition 57 retroactivity requiring juvenile transfer hearings).
- Court vacated the sentence, conditionally reversed the conviction, and remanded for a juvenile transfer hearing; if transfer to adult court would have occurred, trial court must resentence considering Miller/Montgomery/Gutierrez principles and correct abstract errors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Eighth Amendment challenge to 55-to-life as de facto LWOP | State: sentence permissible because Romero discretion existed; not mandatory LWOP | Carter: 55-to-life is functional LWOP for a juvenile and violates Eighth Amendment absent consideration of youth attributes | Court: Remand for resentencing — trial court must reweigh without any presumption in favor of Three Strikes or LWOP and apply Miller/Montgomery/Gutierrez factors |
| Mootness given post-sentencing juvenile-parole statutes (SB 260 / §3051) | State: new parole statutes moot Eighth Amendment claim | Carter: statutes inapplicable because Three Strikes sentences excluded | Court: Not moot — §3051 excludes Three Strikes cases, and other recall mechanisms do not cure constitutional defect at initial sentencing |
| Effect of Proposition 57 / retroactivity on proceedings | State: (implicit) proceed under existing criminal judgment | Carter: case must be reviewed under Lara retroactivity for juvenile transfer | Court: Conditional reversal and remand to juvenile court for transfer hearing per Lara; if juvenile court would have transferred, convictions reinstated but resentencing required |
| Errors in abstract of judgment | Carter: identify clerical errors in abstract that could affect custody computation | State: concedes errors | Court: Noted three specific abstract errors and directed correction if conviction is reinstated after resentencing |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Franklin, 63 Cal.4th 261 (concession that a very long term can be the functional equivalent of LWOP)
- People v. Gutierrez, 58 Cal.4th 1354 (sentencing juveniles to LWOP-equivalent must be done with no presumption favoring LWOP; must consider Miller factors)
- Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (mandatory LWOP for juveniles unconstitutional; juveniles have distinctive attributes that mitigate LWOP)
- Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S. Ct. 718 (Miller announced substantive rule applicable retroactively)
- Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (LWOP unconstitutional for juvenile nonhomicide offenders)
- People v. Romero, 13 Cal.4th 497 (limits on striking prior convictions under §1385 and framework for Romero motion)
- People v. Carmony, 33 Cal.4th 367 (appellate review of Romero/§1385 decisions)
- People v. Lara, 4 Cal.5th 299 (Proposition 57 retroactivity; juvenile transfer hearing required)
- People v. Woods, 19 Cal.App.5th 1080 (Senate Bill No. 620 gun-enhancement amendment applied retroactively)