People v. Lara CA2/4
B258181A
| Cal. Ct. App. | Oct 5, 2016Background
- In 2008, then-17-year-old Daniel Joseph Lara committed four gang-related shootings, wounding three victims and firing at a fourth; he was convicted by jury of three counts of attempted premeditated murder, related firearm and gang enhancements.
- At sentencing the trial court imposed concurrent 15-years-to-life terms for each attempted murder plus a consecutive 25-years-to-life enhancement under Penal Code §12022.53(d), for a total of 40 years to life.
- Lara appealed, arguing the aggregate sentence was the functional equivalent of life without parole (LWOP) in violation of the Eighth Amendment for a juvenile offender.
- This court originally affirmed the sentence, finding Lara’s life expectancy exceeded his minimum parole period by at least 19 years, but the California Supreme Court granted review and stayed the case pending its decision in People v. Franklin.
- In Franklin the Supreme Court held that Penal Code §3051 (youth offender parole hearings) moots a juvenile’s constitutional challenge to a mandatory LWOP sentence and remanded similar cases for a limited inquiry whether the defendant had an adequate opportunity to make a record for future youth offender parole hearings.
- On remand, this Court follows Franklin: Lara’s controlling offense (the 25-to-life firearm enhancement) makes him eligible for a youth offender parole hearing in his 25th year of incarceration, mooting the Eighth Amendment challenge; the case is remanded to the trial court to determine whether Lara had an adequate opportunity to put on a record relevant to future parole consideration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Lara’s sentence violated the Eighth Amendment as LWOP equivalent | People: sentence lawful; previously affirmed that parole eligibility occurred within life expectancy | Lara: 40-to-life functionally equivalent to LWOP for juvenile and violates Eighth Amendment | Moot under §3051 because Lara is eligible for youth offender parole hearing in 25th year; remand for limited inquiry whether he had opportunity to make record |
| Whether remand is required to allow Lara to present juvenile-era evidence for Board consideration | People: no objection to remand | Lara: requests remand per Franklin to create record of youth-related evidence | Court remands to trial court to determine if adequate opportunity was given; if not, permit submissions under Franklin procedures |
Key Cases Cited
- Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010) (Eighth Amendment bars LWOP for nonhomicide juvenile offenders)
- People v. Caballero, 55 Cal.4th 262 (2012) (California applied Graham; lengthy term with parole eligibility beyond life expectancy is unconstitutional for juvenile nonhomicide offender)
- People v. Franklin, 63 Cal.4th 261 (2016) (Pen. Code §3051 youth offender parole process moots juvenile LWOP challenge; remand to ensure opportunity to create record for parole board)