People v. Lozano
197 Cal. Rptr. 3d 257
Cal. Ct. App.2016Background
- In 1992, 16-year-old Elizabeth Lozano participated in the robbery and killing of 13-year-old Tayde Vasquez; Lozano was convicted of first-degree murder with a special circumstance and originally sentenced to life without parole (LWOP) in 1996.
- Lozano served nearly two decades in prison; her early incarceration included serious misconduct, but for roughly the last 15 years she had no disciplinary violations and produced records of educational achievement, programming, leadership, and laudatory staff comments showing rehabilitation.
- After Miller v. Alabama (2012) and People v. Gutierrez (2014), Lozano filed a habeas petition; the prosecution agreed that a new sentencing hearing was required, and the trial court vacated the LWOP and held resentencing in 2015.
- At resentencing the trial court excluded all evidence of Lozano’s postconviction conduct and rehabilitation, ruling it must sentence based on the facts and defendant’s characteristics as of the original 1996 sentencing.
- The court again imposed LWOP; on appeal the Court of Appeal held the trial court erred by categorically excluding postconviction rehabilitation evidence and reversed and remanded for a new sentencing hearing that allows consideration of such evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a resentencing court may categorically exclude evidence of postconviction rehabilitation when imposing LWOP on a juvenile offender | Exclusion is proper; Miller/Graham require sentencing based on characteristics at the time of the original sentencing and postconviction conduct is relevant only to a later recall under Penal Code §1170(d)(2) | Postconviction rehabilitation evidence is highly relevant to Miller/Gutierrez’s required inquiry into "possibility of rehabilitation" and must be considered at resentencing | Trial court erred: postconviction rehabilitation evidence must be admissible and considered at resentencing; reversal and remand for new hearing ordered |
Key Cases Cited
- Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (U.S. 2005) (death penalty unconstitutional for offenders under 18)
- Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (U.S. 2010) (LWOP unconstitutional for juvenile nonhomicide offenders; juveniles must have meaningful opportunity for release)
- Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (U.S. 2012) (mandatory LWOP for juvenile homicide offenders violates the Eighth Amendment; sentencer must consider youth and its hallmark features)
- People v. Gutierrez, 58 Cal.4th 1354 (Cal. 2014) (interpreting Miller: trial court must consider all relevant evidence bearing on the possibility of rehabilitation, including youth characteristics, before imposing LWOP)