People v. Garcia
241 Cal. Rptr. 3d 349
| Cal. Ct. App. 5th | 2018Background
- In 1996 Izick David Garcia, who was 17 at the time of the crimes, was convicted of multiple violent sex offenses and sentenced to an aggregate term of 94 years to life; this court affirmed the conviction in 1997.
- Garcia filed a habeas petition in 2012 challenging his sentence under Graham, Miller, and Caballero; the trial court granted relief and resentenced him to 50 years to life to afford a "meaningful opportunity" for parole within his natural life expectancy.
- Garcia asserts, and the Attorney General concedes, Proposition 57 requires vacatur of the sentence, conditional reversal of convictions, and remand to juvenile court for a transfer hearing under current Welfare & Institutions Code § 707 procedures (per People v. Lara and People v. Vela).
- If the juvenile court would not have transferred him under current law, convictions become juvenile adjudications; if it would have transferred him, convictions are reinstated and the criminal court must resentencing consistent with People v. Contreras.
- Garcia also challenges Penal Code § 3051 (excluding One Strike juvenile offenders from 25-year youth offender parole hearings) as an equal protection and Eighth Amendment violation; the court finds that challenge unripe pending transfer/resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Entitlement to Proposition 57 transfer hearing | Garcia: Proposition 57 applies retroactively; must conditionally reverse and refer to juvenile court for transfer hearing | AG: Concedes entitlement to transfer hearing | Court: Conditionallly reversed convictions and remanded for juvenile transfer hearing per Lara/Vela |
| Resentencing if case remains in adult court (Eighth Amendment/de facto LWOP) | Garcia: 50-to-life is de facto LWOP for a juvenile and violates Graham/Caballero; needs resentencing | AG: Agreed Contreras controls and resentencing is required | Court: If juvenile court transfers, convictions reinstated and criminal court must resentenc e consistent with Contreras (consider mitigating factors; set parole-seeking time) |
| Challenge to Penal Code § 3051 (equal protection/Eighth Amendment) | Garcia: Excluding juvenile One Strike offenders from 25-year youth offender parole hearings is irrational and unconstitutional | AG: Opposed; Circuit/State has legitimate penological reasons; matter undecided at Supreme Court | Court: Issue not ripe — juvenile transfer and resentencing may render it moot; Contreras noted the anomaly but declined to decide; leave for lower court/legislature or future appeal |
| Clerical errors in amended abstracts of judgment | Garcia: Amended abstracts contain incorrect parties, dates, DOB, custody credits | AG: Acknowledged errors | Court: Not necessary to correct now because of remand; trial court should correct if/when resentencing occurs |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012) (mandatory LWOP for juveniles violates Eighth Amendment)
- Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010) (LWOP for nonhomicide juvenile offenders unconstitutional)
- People v. Caballero, 55 Cal.4th 262 (2012) (applies Graham to de facto LWOP juvenile sentences; requires meaningful opportunity for parole and consideration of mitigating youth factors)
- People v. Lara, 4 Cal.5th 299 (2018) (Proposition 57 applies retroactively; remedies include conditional reversal and juvenile transfer hearing per Vela)
- People v. Contreras, 4 Cal.5th 349 (2018) (50-year-plus juvenile nonhomicide sentences can constitute de facto LWOP; remand for resentencing)
- People v. Vela, 21 Cal.App.5th 1099 (2018) (remedy and procedure for cases pending in adult court at time of Proposition 57: conditional reversal and juvenile transfer hearing)