People v. Lozano
B278663
| Cal. Ct. App. | Nov 9, 2017Background
- Elizabeth Lozano committed first-degree murder with a robbery-murder special circumstance at age 16 and was sentenced to life without parole (LWOP) in 1996.
- Her conviction and LWOP sentence were affirmed on appeal in 1997; she later obtained resentencing proceedings after Miller v. Alabama.
- A 2015 resentencing resulted in LWOP again; this court reversed in 2016 and remanded for the trial court to consider Lozano’s post-conviction institutional conduct before imposing LWOP.
- At a 2016 hearing the trial court again imposed LWOP after considering both positive rehabilitation and a recent rules violation (possession of a cell phone).
- After briefing on her Eighth Amendment challenge, the Legislature enacted SB 394 (amending Penal Code §3051) making juvenile homicide offenders sentenced to LWOP eligible for a youth offender parole hearing during their 25th year of incarceration.
- The Court of Appeal concluded SB 394 provides a meaningful opportunity for release and dismissed Lozano’s appeal as moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Lozano’s LWOP violates the Eighth Amendment post-Miller | State: SB 394 provides parole review and addresses Eighth Amendment concerns | Lozano: LWOP still unconstitutional; she suffers collateral harm because resentencing to ~26-to-life was required and would yield earlier parole eligibility | Appeal dismissed as moot because SB 394 makes Lozano eligible for youth offender parole hearing at 25 years, affording the meaningful opportunity Miller requires |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012) (mandatory LWOP for juveniles violates the Eighth Amendment; courts must account for youth and capacity for change)
- Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S. Ct. 718 (2016) (States may remedy Miller violations by allowing parole consideration rather than resentencing)
- People v. Franklin, 63 Cal.4th 261 (2016) (holding section 3051’s youth offender parole framework can supersede long juvenile terms and render Eighth Amendment challenges moot)
- Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010) (juvenile offenders must have some meaningful opportunity for release based on demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation)