People v. Willover
248 Cal. App. 4th 302
Cal. Ct. App.2016Background
- Willover, a juvenile at the time, received two consecutive LWOP sentences in 1999 for two first-degree murders and related offenses.
- In 2014, he petitioned for recall and resentencing under Penal Code 1170,1(d)(2) after serving at least 15 years.
- The underlying offenses occurred in January 1998 in Monterey: he shot three women, killing Mathews and Olivo and wounding Aninger, with an additional attempted robbery/murder against Olivo.
- Convictions included two first-degree murders, attempted premeditated murder, aggravated mayhem, plus firearm enhancements and a felony-murder theory was involved for one murder.
- The trial court denied resentencing, citing the heinous nature of the crimes and Willover’s leadership role, and this denial was affirmed on appeal.
- A later petition proceeded to a 2015 resentencing hearing, where the court weighed eight statutory factors and other circumstances before denying recall.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the trial court err by denying recall and resentencing based solely on the crimes? | Willover argues Miller/Gutierrez require considering youth, rehabilitation, and non-crime factors. | Willover contends the court should weigh rehabilitation and age alongside crime circumstances. | No abuse of discretion; four factors weighed in favor but not enough to overcome crime circumstances. |
| Whether the court properly applied section 1170(d)(2) factors in discretionary weighting | People asserts factors support denying recall due to seriousness and leadership. | Willover argues factors, including rehabilitation, favored recall. | Court properly exercised discretion; four factors weighed against recall given offense severity. |
| Whether Miller/Gutierrez and related caselaw require remand or modification of the sentence | People presses that Miller does not require remand given current framework. | Willover relies on Miller/Gutierrez to demand resentencing consideration. | No remand required; discretionary recall denied consistent with Miller/Gutierrez. |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (U.S. 2012) (mandatory LWOP for juveniles violates Eighth Amendment; factors may limit use of LWOP)
- Gutierrez v. Superior Court, 58 Cal.4th 1354 (Cal. 2014) (discretion to impose LWOP under 190.5(b) and Miller-factor applicability)
- Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S. Ct. 718 (U.S. 2016) (Miller retroactivity; substantive rule requires retroactive application)
- People v. Manibusan, 58 Cal.4th 40 (Cal. 2013) (context for leadership/participation in joint offenses and death penalty)