People v. Murray
203 Cal. App. 4th 277
Cal. Ct. App.2012Background
- Murray, age 17 at the time of the offenses (2006), was convicted by plea to two counts of first-degree murder and one count of attempted murder.
- Crimes occurred in a secluded wash; Murray was accompanied by Vasquez and Villanueva who pointed guns but fired no shots.
- Trial on sanity resulted in a sane finding; Murray received life without parole on each murder count, plus firearm enhancements, and a consecutive nine-year term for attempted murder with a firearm enhancement.
- On remand for resentencing, the trial court struck a second special-murder circumstance and resentenced to LWP on count 1 (25-year-to-life gun enhancement), 25-to-life on count 2 (with 25-year gun enhancement), and high-term nine years on count 3 (with 20-year gun enhancement) to run consecutively.
- Murray appealed, challenging the constitutionality of the no-parole sentence for a juvenile murderer and various sentencing errors, and the Court modified the judgment to reflect actual custody credits.
- The court ultimately affirmed the judgment as modified, with custody credits adjusted to 1,428 days.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether no-parole life sentences for juvenile murderers are constitutionally permissible. | Murray asserts Graham extends to prohibit juvenile murder LWOP under Eighth Amendment and California Const. | State follows Blackwell, distinguishing Graham as limited to nonhomicide offenses. | No; no-parole LWOP for juvenile murderers is constitutional per Blackwell. |
| Whether the trial court properly exercised discretion at resentencing despite an open plea. | Murray contends the court believed it was bound by plea terms and failed to exercise discretion. | Court exercised discretion, considering age, violence, and mitigating factors despite mistaken plea understanding. | Court did exercise discretion and did not abuse its sentencing authority. |
| Whether the trial court deprived Murray of due process by not allowing certain family mitigation statements. | Defense sought to present family members; argues inadequate mitigation consideration. | Rule 4.411.5 allows unsworn letters; no sworn testimony required; victim-family statements permitted under statute; defense letters sufficed. | No due process violation; written statements permitted and read; any error would be harmless. |
| Whether the judgment should reflect Murray's custody credits correctly. | Murray seeks 1,429 days of actual custody credit. | Respondent calculates 1,428 days; adjustment needed. | Modify abstract to 1,428 days of custody credits. |
Key Cases Cited
- Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. _ (U.S. Supreme Court 2010) (no-parole life for nonhomicide juvenile offenses prohibited; debates applicability to homicide offenses)
- Blackwell v. People, 202 Cal.App.4th 144 (Cal. App. Dist. 1st 2011) (limits Graham to nonhomicide offenses; no categorical ban for juvenile homicide LWOP in California)
- Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (U.S. Supreme Court 2005) (categorical prohibition on capital punishment for juveniles; informs LWOP discussion)
- People v. Danks, 32 Cal.4th 269 (Cal. 2004) (re special circumstances; sentencing considerations for multiple murders)
- Harris v. Wright, 93 F.3d 581 (9th Cir. 1996) (no-parole LWOP for juvenile murder not cruel and unusual punishment in Ninth Circuit)
- In re Lynch, 8 Cal.3d 410 (1972) (California standard for cruel or unusual punishment review)
- People v. Belmontes, 34 Cal.3d 335 (Cal. 1983) (due process in sentencing and discretion considerations)