California Supreme Court Rules in Juvenile Sentencing Case

San Jose Juvenile Sentencing Case Lawyer And Santa Clara Juvenile Lawyer Attorney

The California Supreme Court recently ruled in the case of a teenager sentenced to 50 years to life for a 2011 murder that the mandatory sentence does not violate the Constitution’s protections against cruel and unusual punishment. This is because of a recently passed state law requiring parole hearings for juveniles after they have served no more than 25 years and requiring the parole board to consider an offender’s youth.

The Case

In January, 2011, a Richmond teenager, at the time aged 16, shot and killed another 16-year-old. The shooter accused the victim of being involved with a gang based in a Richmond housing project that he said was terrorizing his family. The gang, according to the defendant, had been involved in a shooting into his family home and had slashed the tires and shot out the windows of his mother’s car. Additionally, the shooter accused the victim of beating up the shooter’s younger brother.

The teen was tried as an adult and convicted by a jury on both first-degree murder and firearms charges. In May, 2012, he was given a mandatory sentence of 50 years to life—25 to life for murder, with a consecutive term of 25 to life for the firearms offense.

Appeal

The California Supreme Court recently rejected a challenge to the sentence. The defendant and his lawyer challenged the sentence on the basis that it was the equivalent of a mandatory sentence of life without parole, which the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled is not permissible in juvenile cases. He also argued that the mandatory sentence did not allow the judge to consider the mitigating factors of youth during sentencing.

Life Without Parole

In 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court held that courts may not impose mandatory sentences of life without parole on minors. Minors more likely to act impetuously, often do not fully understand risks, and are more vulnerable to peer pressure and the influences of their home environments. However, the court also ruled that an individual judge may sentence a juvenile to life without parole, but only if he or she considers the mitigating factors of the offender’s youth, and only if the life sentence is not mandatory.

California Law

In 2014, the California legislature passed a law stating that juvenile offenders must get a parole hearing within 25 years of incarceration. The law also required the parole board to consider the offender’s youth when making their determination.

Based on this law, the California Supreme Court held that the teen’s mandatory 50-year sentence was constitutional. The requirement that a parole hearing be held after 25 years and that the parole board consider the teen’s youth rendered the constitutional challenge moot. The Court sent the case back to the trial court to determine whether it should create legal record regarding how the defendant’s age affected his behavior, which would later be provided to the parole board to inform their decision.

If your child has been charged with a crime, it is essential to have an experienced attorney’s help. Please contact skilled San Jose criminal defense attorney Wesley Schroeder for a confidential consultation.

Sources:

http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S217699.pdf

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-9646g2i8.pdf

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PEN&sectionNum=3051