People v. Guerrero
B311548
| Cal. Ct. App. | Mar 14, 2022Background
- Alejandra Guerrero, age 16 at the time, was convicted as an aider and abettor of first-degree special-circumstance murder and other offenses; originally sentenced to life without parole under Penal Code § 190.5(b).
- This court affirmed the convictions but in Guerrero I remanded for resentencing so the trial court would consider youth-related mitigating factors identified in Miller v. Alabama and People v. Gutierrez before deciding whether to impose life without parole.
- At the remand hearing the trial judge treated the direction as a mere clarification, proceeded over defense objection in Guerrero’s absence, and again imposed life without parole without addressing the Miller/Gutierrez youth factors.
- The Attorney General concedes the trial court erred by excluding Guerrero and by failing to consider youth-related mitigating factors, but argues the errors were harmless because the judge would not have changed the sentence.
- The Court of Appeal reversed: the errors were prejudicial because Guerrero was entitled to an informed exercise of discretion at resentencing and to be present (or knowingly waive presence); the matter is remanded for resentencing and ordered to be heard by a different judge.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendant had to be present at the resentencing hearing | People conceded remand errors but argued any error in exclusion was harmless | Guerrero argued she had a constitutional and statutory right to be present at critical stages including resentencing | Court held defendant must be present (unless valid waiver); exclusion was error and not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt |
| Whether the trial court was required to consider Miller/Gutierrez youth-related mitigating factors on remand | People argued prior sentencing and §3051 made consideration unnecessary or the record showed court had considered youth factors | Guerrero argued remand required explicit consideration of Miller factors before imposing LWOP under §190.5(b) | Court held trial court must consider Miller/Gutierrez youth factors when exercising discretion under §190.5(b); failure to do so was error |
| Whether the errors were harmless | People contended the judge’s statements showed he would not have reduced the sentence, so error was harmless | Guerrero argued absence and failure to consider youth factors deprived her of a full, fair opportunity to present mitigating evidence | Court rejected harmlessness: could not conclude beyond reasonable doubt outcome would be same; remand required |
| Whether resentencing should occur before the same judge | People did not request same judge; trial court had previously indicated unwillingness to reconsider | Guerrero requested a fair, unbiased hearing | Court ordered resentencing before a different trial judge to ensure a fair, unbiased proceeding |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012) (mandatory life without parole for juveniles violates Eighth Amendment)
- People v. Gutierrez, 58 Cal.4th 1354 (2014) (state courts must consider Miller youth-related factors when sentencing under §190.5(b))
- People v. Franklin, 63 Cal.4th 261 (2016) (youth-offender parole scheme; sentencing record on youth factors required—Franklin hearing)
- People v. Nieves, 11 Cal.5th 404 (2021) (recognizing defendant’s right to be present at sentence modification hearings)
- People v. Rodriguez, 17 Cal.4th 253 (1998) (resentencing where court has discretion is a critical stage requiring presence)
- People v. Ochoa, 53 Cal.App.5th 841 (2020) (remand required where youth factors were not considered at sentencing)
- People v. Cutting, 42 Cal.App.5th 344 (2019) (exclusion of defendant from resentencing not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Peracchi v. Superior Court, 30 Cal.4th 1245 (2003) (appellate court may order resentencing before a different judge)