THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JOSHUA ACOSTA, Defendant and Appellant.
G057136 (Super. Ct. No. 16NF2644)
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE
Filed 2/9/21
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, John Conley, Judge. Affirmed.
Michelle May Peterson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Arlene A. Sevidal, Randall D. Einhorn, Elizabeth M. Kuchar and Joseph Anagnos, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
*
*
*
Acosta now claims his LWOP sentences are unconstitutional and must be modified to allow for future parole consideration. Much of his challenge concerns Penal Code1 section 3051, which grants the right to a youth offender parole hearing to juvenile offenders sentenced to LWOP and to juvenile and young adult offenders sentenced to indeterminate or life terms, no matter how lengthy. According to Acosta, section 3051 violates equal protection because it denies young adult offenders sentenced to LWOP, like Acosta, the right to a youth offender parole hearing. Acosta further contends his LWOP sentences violate the Eighth Amendment. We reject these contentions and affirm the judgment.
FACTS
At the time of the murders, Acosta was a 21-year-old United States Army mechanic stationed at Fort Irwin. His best friend was his 25-year-old codefendant, Frank Felix.
About a year before the murders, Acosta and Felix met 17-year-old Katlynn G. through the furry community, a worldwide group of cartoon fans who like to
Katlynn lived in Fullerton with her mother and stepfather, Jen and Chris Yost, and her two younger half-sisters, ages 6 and 9. Katlynn confided to Acosta and Felix that she wanted to run away from home because her stepfather was physically and sexually abusing her. She also talked about killing her stepfather.
Acosta and Felix decided they had to “save” Katlynn and her sisters from further abuse. They came up with a plan to murder Katlynn‘s parents using a shotgun owned by Felix‘s father, and then to help Katlynn hide until she turned 18 and could live with Felix.
Later Katlynn texted Acosta that she was going to run away from home and asked him to help her escape. Apparently by chance, Acosta and Felix had planned to execute their murder plot that same night.
Acosta drove to Katlynn‘s house and went inside, while Felix stayed outside. Acosta then discovered that a family friend named Billy was spending the night; he decided to also kill Billy to keep him “quiet.” Katlynn secretly loaded her belongings into Acosta‘s truck with Felix‘s help. After everyone was asleep, Katlynn snuck out the front door.
Acosta, who was waiting outside, asked Katlynn if he could use the restroom; he told Katlynn to go to his truck. Acosta entered the house with the shotgun. He walked over to the couch where Billy was sleeping and shot him in the back of the head. Acosta then walked to the master bedroom and shot Jen in the face; he shot Chris as he tried to flee. Acosta, Felix, and Katlynn drove to Felix‘s house, where they destroyed Katlynn‘s cellphone so she could not be tracked. They also burned the clothing Acosta wore during the murders.
The police soon informed authorities at Fort Irwin about Acosta‘s possible involvement in the triple homicide. Military police contacted Acosta in his barracks, retrieved shotgun shells from his pocket, and transported him to the military police station for questioning.
Acosta eventually gave a complete confession and told police where they could find Katlynn. He claimed it was his idea to kill the Yosts; he said he and Felix planned the murders because the Yosts treated Katlynn as a sex toy and a punching bag. They wanted to save her and her young sisters from “two monsters,” and Billy was just “collateral.”
The district attorney filed an information charging Acosta with three counts of special circumstance first degree murder (
At trial the defense presented evidence that Acosta has a form of high functioning autism spectrum disorder, a condition marked by persistent deficits in social communication and social interaction. According to the defense expert, Acosta is not intellectually disabled, but he is “severely affected from a social-emotional point of view” and functions at the social-emotional level of an 11-year-old, making him easily subject to manipulation. Acosta also has a history of impulsivity due to his attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), further compounding the social-emotional deficiencies from his autism spectrum disorder.2
DISCUSSION
Acosta‘s appeal is limited to the propriety of his LWOP sentences. As noted, the trial court sentenced Acosta to three consecutive LWOP terms under
An LWOP sentence “is the second most severe penalty allowed under the law.” (People v. Scott (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 1265, 1272.) By effectively guaranteeing death in prison, an LWOP sentence “deprives the convict of the most basic liberties without giving hope of restoration . . . [Citation.] . . . [It] ‘means denial of hope; it means that good behavior and character improvement are immaterial; it means that whatever the future might hold in store for the mind and spirit of [the convict], he will remain in prison for the rest of his days.‘” (Graham v. Florida (2010) 560 U.S. 48, 69-70 (Graham).)
Before turning to Acosta‘s arguments, we review section 3051‘s purpose and history. The Legislature first enacted section 3051 in 2013 in response to a series of decisions concerning Eighth Amendment limitations on juvenile sentencing. (See Graham, supra, 560 U.S. at p. 74 [juvenile who commits nonhomicide offense cannot be sentenced to LWOP]; Miller v. Alabama (2012) 567 U.S. 460, 465 (Miller) [juvenile who commits homicide offense cannot be sentenced automatically to LWOP]; People v. Caballero (2012) 55 Cal.4th 262, 268 (Caballero) [juvenile cannot be sentenced to functional equivalent of LWOP for a nonhomicide offense].) These decisions rested in part “on science and social science” (Miller, at p. 471), and noted that “developments in psychology and brain science continue to show fundamental differences between juvenile and adult minds” and in the “parts of the brain involved in behavior control” (Graham, at p. 68; see Caballero, at p. 266).
“[T]he Legislature passed Senate Bill No. 260 explicitly to bring juvenile sentencing into conformity with Graham, Miller, and Caballero.” (People v. Franklin (2016) 63 Cal.4th 261, 277.) In enacting section 3051, the Legislature explained that “youthfulness both lessens a juvenile‘s moral culpability and enhances the prospect that, as a youth matures into an adult and neurological development occurs, these individuals can become contributing members of society.” (Stats. 2013, ch. 312, § 1.) The bill‘s stated purpose was “to establish a parole eligibility mechanism that provides a person serving a sentence for crimes that he or she committed as a juvenile the opportunity to obtain release when he or she has shown that he or she has been rehabilitated and gained maturity, in accordance with the decision of the California Supreme Court in [Caballero] and the decisions of the United States Supreme Court in [Graham and Miller].” (Ibid.)
In 2015, the Legislature expanded section 3051 to apply to offenders who committed crimes at the age of 23 or younger. (Former
In 2017, the Legislature twice amended section 3051. First, the Legislature further increased the age from 23 to 25, such that offenders serving a determinate or life sentence for crimes committed when they were 25 or younger are now eligible for a youth offender parole hearing. (
Thus, in its current form, section 3051 “permit[s] the reevaluation of the fitness to return to society of persons who committed serious offenses prior to reaching full cognitive and emotional maturity,” unless the person was “between 18 and 25 years of age when they committed their offense [and] sentenced to life without possibility of parole.” (Jones, supra, 42 Cal.App.5th at p. 485 (conc. opn. of Pollak, J.).) It therefore “distinguishes both between those who committed their offenses under 18 years of age and those between 18 and 25 years of age, and between offenders 18 to 25 years of age sentenced to prison terms with the possibility of parole and those in the same age group who have been sentenced to life without the possibility of parole.” (Id. at p. 483 (conc. opn. of Pollak, J.).)
2. Equal Protection Analysis
Acosta asserts section 3051‘s exclusion of young adult LWOP offenders from the right to a youthful offender parole hearing violates equal protection, first by granting future parole consideration to young adults with any sentence of “X” years to life but not to young adults sentenced to LWOP, and second by granting future parole consideration to juveniles sentenced to LWOP but not to young adults sentenced to LWOP.
If a class of criminal defendants is similarly situated for purposes of the law challenged to another class of defendants who are treated differently, “courts look to determine whether there is a rational basis for the difference.” (Edwards, supra, 34 Cal.App.5th at p. 195.) “[E]qual protection of the law is denied only where there is no ‘rational relationship between the disparity of treatment and some legitimate governmental purpose.’ [Citation.] . . . This standard of rationality does not depend upon whether lawmakers ever actually articulated the purpose they sought to achieve. Nor must the underlying rationale be empirically substantiated. [Citation.] While the realities of the subject matter cannot be completely ignored [citation], a court may engage in ‘rational speculation’ as to the justifications for the legislative choice [citation]. It is immaterial for rational basis review ‘whether or not’ any such speculation has ‘a foundation in the record.‘” (People v. Turnage (2012) 55 Cal.4th 62, 74-75 (Turnage).)
To successfully challenge a law on equal protection grounds, the defendant must negate “‘every conceivable basis‘” on which “the disputed statutory disparity” might be supported. (Edwards, supra, 34 Cal.App.5th at p. 195.) “If a plausible basis exists for the disparity, ‘[e]qual protection analysis does not entitle the judiciary to second-guess the wisdom, fairness, or logic of the law.‘” (Id. at pp. 195-196.)
We must first decide whether young adult LWOP offenders are similarly situated to young adult offenders sentenced to life and juvenile offenders sentenced to life or LWOP—not for any purpose, but for the purpose of section 3051. We conclude they are.
Section 3051‘s amendments were designed “to account for neuroscience research that the human brain—especially those portions responsible for judgment and decisionmaking—continues to develop into a person‘s mid-20s.” (Edwards, supra, 34 Cal.App.5th at p. 198.) “[T]he purpose of section 3051 is not to measure the extent of punishment warranted by the offense the individual committed but to permit the evaluation of whether, after years of growth in prison, that person has attained the maturity to lead a law-abiding life outside of prison. Both a person sentenced to LWOP for a crime committed while under 18 and a person receiving the same sentence for a crime committed when 18 or slightly older committed their offenses before their character was necessarily ‘well formed’ and when their judgment and decisionmaking were likely to improve. Both are similarly situated for the purpose of evaluating whether they have outgrown the youthful impulses that led to the commission of their offenses.” (Jones, supra, 42 Cal.App.5th at pp. 485-486 (conc. opn. of Pollak, J.).)
“Likewise, a person who committed an offense between 18 and 25 years of age serving a sentence permitting parole and a person who committed an offense at the same age serving an LWOP sentence are similarly situated for the purpose of determining whether they have outgrown the youthful impulses that led to the commission of their offenses.” (Jones, supra, 42 Cal.App.5th at p. 486 (conc. opn. of Pollak, J.).) As between “youth offenders sentenced to LWOP and those sentenced to a parole-eligible life terms,” “one could say that both groups committed their crimes before their prefrontal cortexes reached their full functional capacity, when their characters were not yet fully formed. Both groups are equally likely to demonstrate improved judgment and decision-making as they reach emotional and cognitive maturity.” (In re Williams (2020) 57 Cal.App.5th 427, 435 (Williams).)
We next must determine whether there is a rational basis for treating young adult LWOP offenders differently than juvenile offenders sentenced to life or LWOP or young adult offenders sentenced to life. We conclude there is.
To start, there is a rational basis for distinguishing between juvenile LWOP offenders and young adult LWOP offenders: their age. Section 3051 has always excluded young adult LWOP offenders, and until 2017 it also excluded juvenile LWOP offenders. Section 3051 now affords a youth offender parole hearing to juvenile LWOP offenders to comply with Montgomery without resorting to costly resentencing hearings. (Sen. Com. on Public Safety, Analysis of Sen. Bill No. 394 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.) Mar. 21, 2017, p. 3.) The Legislature declined to include young adult LWOP offenders in this amendment, presumably because Montgomery did not compel such treatment for young adults. The Legislature thus had a constitutionally sufficient basis for distinguishing juvenile LWOP offenders from young adult LWOP offenders. (See also Roper v. Simmons (2005) 543 U.S. 551, 574 [“a line must be drawn,” and “[t]he age of 18 is the point where society draws the line for many purposes between childhood and adulthood“].)
There is also a rational basis for distinguishing between a young adult LWOP offender and a young adult offender serving a non-LWOP sentence: the severity of the crime committed. “The Legislature has prescribed an LWOP sentence for only a small number of crimes. These are the crimes the Legislature deems so morally depraved and so injurious as to warrant a sentence that carries no hope of release for the criminal and no threat of recidivism for society. In excluding LWOP inmates from youth offender parole hearings, the Legislature reasonably could have decided that youthful offenders who have committed such crimes—even with diminished culpability and increased potential for rehabilitation—are nonetheless still sufficiently culpable and sufficiently dangerous to justify lifetime incarceration.” (Williams, supra, 57 Cal.App.5th at p. 436.)
We do have some reservations about our analysis. After all, in amending section 3051 to encompass young adult offenders, the Legislature expressly recognized that cognitive brain development continues into the early 20s or later, and the parts of the brain that are still developing during this process affect judgment in ways that are highly relevant to criminal behavior. Since the Legislature has determined a 17-year-old who is sentenced to life or LWOP for committing a crime when his or her brain is not yet fully developed should receive a youth offender parole hearing after 25 years of incarceration, a 21-year-old sentenced to LWOP for committing a crime when his or her brain is not yet fully developed should arguably receive the same hearing. We are also mindful of the public policy purpose of the statute, which is to permit the eventual evaluation of a young offender who committed a serious offense before reaching full cognitive and emotional maturity with an eye toward determining whether that individual has become fit to return to society. Arguably an LWOP offender and a non-LWOP offender are equally capable of gaining maturity, so we question whether the exclusion for young adult LWOP offenders from this process is consistent with the statute‘s purpose and legislative history.
3. Eighth Amendment Analysis
Acosta alternatively argues his LWOP sentences violate the Eighth Amendment. According to Acosta, even though he was 21 years old at the time of the murders, his autism spectrum disorder causes him to incur mitigated culpability similar to that of a juvenile under Miller. Accordingly, he asks us to modify his sentence to allow him to seek parole eligibility in 25 years akin to a non-LWOP youthful offender.
Acosta intentionally executed three people, leaving their bodies for two young girls to find. The Eighth Amendment does not prohibit a triple LWOP sentence here. (See also Williams, supra, 57 Cal.App.5th at p. 439 [“If the Eighth Amendment does not prohibit a sentence of death for 21 year olds, then most assuredly, it does not prohibit the lesser LWOP sentence“].)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
GOETHALS, J.
I CONCUR:
BEDSWORTH, ACTING P. J.
I concur with the majority‘s reasoning and its disposition with one exception: I would not reach the similarly situated prong since a rational basis exists for the Legislature to distinguish between a young adult sentenced to life without the possibility of parole and those not falling into this category, as the majority aptly explains. Consequently, appellant cannot prevail no matter how we resolve the similarly situated prong of an equal protection analysis.
ARONSON, ACTING P. J.