People v. Perez
3 Cal. App. 5th 612
Cal. Ct. App.2016Background
- Perez (age 20 at offense) shot at three rival gang members, yelled “EBK,” and admitted to police he "did it"; one victim suffered gunshot wounds.
- Charged with three counts of attempted premeditated murder, discharging a firearm with gross negligence, vandalism, and related gang allegations; jury convicted counts 1–3, 4, and 6 and found firearm enhancements true.
- Trial court sentenced Perez to a determinate 40 years plus an indeterminate 46 years to life (aggregate reflected as 86 years-to-life) based on term and firearm enhancements.
- Perez argued his sentence constitutes cruel and unusual punishment, invoking juvenile-sentencing decisions (Roper/Graham/Miller/Caballero) and recent statutory/parole developments.
- Court of Appeal held the juvenile-line precedent does not categorically apply to a 20-year-old but concluded Perez lacked an adequate opportunity at sentencing to develop the record relevant to future youth-offender parole considerations under newly enacted section 3051 and People v. Franklin.
- Court affirmed the judgment but ordered a limited remand to allow both parties to place on the record the youth-related information Franklin requires for later youth-offender parole proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Perez's Argument | People/Respondent Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Perez’s 86-year-to-life sentence is cruel and unusual under the Eighth Amendment / California Constitution | The rationale of Roper/Graham/Miller/Caballero and new research about late adolescence should apply to Perez (age 20) and render the sentence disproportionate | Eighth Amendment and state precedents draw the juvenile/adult line at 18; those juvenile-specific decisions do not apply to an adult 20-year-old | Court held sentence is not cruel and unusual; Roper/Graham/Miller/Caballero do not categorically apply to Perez (age 20) |
| Whether Miller/Caballero principles should inform a proportionality analysis for a 20-year-old | Miller factors about developmental immaturity should be considered in proportionality even for young adults | Those cases concern juveniles; drawing the line at 18 is constitutionally and societally established and controlling | Court rejected expanding juvenile categorical rules to 20-year-olds and followed Argeta/Abundio reasoning upholding the 18-year bright line |
| Whether recent statutory changes (Sen. Bill No. 260 / §3051) and Franklin affect sentencing proceedings | Because §3051 and Franklin provide youth-offender parole mechanisms, Perez should get consideration consistent with those developments | The People did not dispute the applicability of Franklin procedures; focus was on whether Perez had an adequate record at sentencing | Court held Franklin moots the categorical challenge but requires a limited remand so parties can place youth-related evidence on the record for future parole consideration |
| Whether remand is required and its scope | Perez requested remand to develop record for future youth-offender parole hearings | People declined to oppose in rehearing proceedings; court must ensure adequate record per Franklin | Court ordered a limited remand solely to permit both parties to put on the record characteristics/circumstances relevant to youth-offender parole; otherwise affirmed judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (holding capital punishment unconstitutional for juvenile offenders)
- Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (holding life without parole for nonhomicide juvenile offenders unconstitutional)
- Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (holding mandatory life without parole for juveniles unconstitutional; sentencing court must consider youth-related factors)
- Ewing v. California, 538 U.S. 11 (upholding lengthy recidivist sentence; gross disproportionality review)
- Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63 (upholding 50-to-life under Eighth Amendment review)
- People v. Caballero, 55 Cal.4th 262 (applying federal juvenile-sentencing reasoning to California law)
- People v. Franklin, 63 Cal.4th 261 (holding postconviction youth-offender parole statutes can moot constitutional challenges and requiring remand when record lacks youth-related evidence)
- People v. Argeta, 210 Cal.App.4th 1478 (refusing to extend juvenile sentencing protections to 18+ offenders)
- People v. Abundio, 221 Cal.App.4th 1211 (similar holding declining to apply juvenile rules to adults)