People v. Hayes CA2/5, B297544M

Background:

Hayes was convicted of kidnapping for purposes of robbery (count 1), multiple robberies and assaults with a semiautomatic firearm, and possession of a firearm by a felon; jury found several personal firearm-use enhancements and four prior strikes.
On prior appeal this court held insufficient evidence supported the kidnapping-for-robbery conviction in count 1, reduced it to felony false imprisonment, and remanded for resentencing.
Original sentence: an indeterminate life term with parole eligibility after 14 years on the kidnapping count plus a determinate aggregate of 30 years 4 months on other counts (i.e., a life term with some parole possibility in Hayes’s lifetime).
On remand the trial court imposed a determinate aggregate sentence of 75 years (corrected to 71 years 8 months after striking an enhancement that lacked a jury finding), which yields parole eligibility beyond Hayes’s natural life expectancy.
The parties agree the abstract of judgment misidentifies counts 1 and 11; the jury made no firearm-use finding on count 10 though the court imposed an enhancement for it.

Issues:

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether resentencing after Hayes’s successful appeal imposed a more severe punishment in violation of California double jeopardy/due process rules	People: Hayes forfeited the claim and the new determinate sentence is not a greater punishment	Hayes: Remand sentence (very long determinate term) is functionally life-without-parole and is more severe, so constitutional protections bar it	Court: Preserved on appeal; remand sentence is the functional equivalent of LWOP and therefore more severe; vacated sentence and remanded for resentencing under Hanson/Henderson
Forfeiture of the constitutional challenge	People: Hayes failed to preserve double jeopardy/due process claim at resentencing	Hayes: Counsel’s objections at resentencing were sufficiently specific to preserve the claim	Court: No forfeiture; objections preserved the constitutional claim
Whether a determinate term that exceeds life expectancy is the functional equivalent of LWOP	People: urged deference to sentencing choices and cited parole-denial realities; argued no bright-line equivalence	Hayes: Very long fixed term giving no realistic parole opportunity is functionally LWOP	Court: Agreed with Hayes; a determinate term that effectively forecloses parole in the defendant’s expected lifetime is functionally equivalent to LWOP
Validity of firearm enhancement in count 10 and abstract errors	People: concede abstract must be corrected; enhancement in count 10 improper because jury made no finding	Hayes: Enhancement in count 10 was improper; abstract misidentifies counts	Court: Enhancement in count 10 must be stricken; abstract should be corrected to reflect felony false imprisonment in count 1 and possession by a felon in count 11

Key Cases Cited

People v. Hanson, 23 Cal.4th 355 (Cal. 2000) (double jeopardy prohibits imposition of a more severe sentence on resentencing after successful appeal)
Henderson v. Superior Court, 60 Cal.2d 482 (Cal. 1963) (resentencing after reversal may not increase punishment)
People v. Contreras, 4 Cal.5th 349 (Cal. 2018) (a sentence exceeding natural life expectancy can be functionally equivalent to life without parole)
People v. Norrell, 13 Cal.4th 1 (Cal. 1996) (discussion of comparative severity of indeterminate versus determinate terms in section 654 context)
People v. Jefferson, 21 Cal.4th 86 (Cal. 1999) (parole-eligibility principles for indeterminate life terms)
People v. Burgener, 41 Cal.3d 505 (Cal. 1986) (Board has no discretion to grant or withhold parole for those who served determinate terms)
In re Dannenberg, 34 Cal.4th 1061 (Cal. 2005) (describing determinate terms and parole-release mechanics)