THE LAW and JUVENILE JUSTICE

PAROLE for JUVENILE OFFENDERS

WHY THE CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT GOT IT WRONG--AGAIN

In this last week the California Second District Court of Appeals had a chance to show they had cajones and allow defendants who were under the age of eighteen at the time they were sentenced to be re-sentenced using the guidelines set forth by the United States Supreme Court instead of hiding behind "sentencing laws".  But, no, they showed themselves for the cowards they are.  Instead of re-sentencing using the defendant's age, level of maturity at the time of the offense, as well as physical and mental maturity to determine an appropriate sentence, they again fumbled the ball, and pointed at someone else as being the problem instead of doing the right thing and allowing a new sentence in compliance with the rulings by both the California Supreme Court, and the head honcho Supremes in Washington D.C.

On October 29, 2013,  California's Second District Court of Appeals released an opinion regarding the re-sentencing of youthful offenders who were under the age of eighteen at the time of the offense and sentenced to prison for terms of imprisonment longer than most life-spans, thus running afoul of the United States Supreme Court's ruling on cruel and unusual punishment.  The court in the case entitled en re Bonilla (and in re Alatriste), held that imposing long sentences does not violate the Eighth Amendment, because the California legislature "fixed it" by enacting SB 260 which allows for parole hearings at a set period of time for those who have been sentenced for offenses committed while they were under eighteen.

Here's where the court dropped the ball again, and showed they are true sentencing cowards, run by a court of DA's in black robes who has never seen a kid they can't put away forever!  

The United States Supreme Court stated very clearly in Miller v. Alabama (2012); Graham v. Florida, (2010); and Roper v. Simmons, (2005) that a life without parole sentence for a juvenile offender is a violation of the eight amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual sentencing.  The Supremes held that punishment should be graduated and proportional to the offender and the offense. The court recognized that children, and really kids under eighteen really are still children, do not have the same maturity as adults.  

Quoting from Roper and Graham, the court stated that children have a "lack of maturity and underdeveloped sense of responsibility, leading to recklessness, impulsivity, and heedless risk-taking".  And that children are "more vulnerable to negative influences and outside pressures," including that of families and peers; and that they have limited control over their environments; with their characters not being "well-formed".  

All of this shows that the highest court of the land finally understood what we defense lawyers, child advocates, parents, and social workers have been saying for years, children really are just children and act like children, even when committing horrible crimes, because they aren't fully developed mentally, socially, or emotionally!

The United States Supreme Court also said that based on the eighth amendment's need for graduated sentencing considering the offender, directed that anyone under the age of eighteen being sentenced must be evaluated and have the trial court consider objective factors such as the defendant's age, level of participation in the crime, social background and life experiences, mental capacity, and other prognosticators of the defendant's ability to conform during parole.

This sounds good, and the Supremes got it right.  But, and this is big but. . . the Second District again missed the boat for those who were sentenced prior to the decisions in Graham, Miller, and Roper.  This court said that because, SB 260 states that a defendant must go to parole board at 20 years or 25 years, this fixes the problem!

Are they nuts????  This only forces the issue, but does not fix it.  Instead, the court punted the ball and hoped that the notoriously unsympathetic parole board will set parole dates for kids with sentences of 50 years or 77 years or even 110 years! 

Yeah, right!  As if. . .  

For any of you out there who cares, care to respond to the most recent cowardice of the Second District?????

You want more law?  
See, A Layman's Guide to Criminal Defense, by Mary de la Pena  http://www.amazon.com/Laymans-Guide-To-Criminal-Defense/dp/1450773885

Opening Day For Supremes

OPENING DAY FOR THE ‘SUPREMES’

FIRST MONDAY OF OCTOBER THE SUPREME COURT

OPENS FOR BUSINESS—THIS YEAR—PRAYERS TO OPEN PUBLIC MEETINGS; AFFIRMATIVE ACTION AT PUBLIC UNIVERSITIES; PRIVACY OF CELL PHONE PICS AND TEXTS; RELIGIOUS FREEDOM AND HEALTH CARE FOR WOMEN

BY MARY DE LA PEÑA, Esq.

This year the United States Supreme Court is taking up multiple issues that have incredibly thorny side-issues, such as States rights to use percentages for determining fair disparity of races at their universities (long thought to be settled); the rights of people 19 and 20 to purchase guns (also thought to be long settled); the right to use “Religious Freedom” by companies seeking to deny women health coverage for reproductive services (really?  You white guys still harping on this?); and the right to use prayer to open public meetings.

These are just a few of the issues the Supremes are focusing on this year, but there are more.  Let’s see if they can F***-up our political process any more than they did by dismantling our voter rights laws and our election finance laws.  It appears that they are ready to do more damage to our Republic by doing just that by taking up McClutchen v. FEC, which questions the limits on individual donors to a campaign or candidate.  Think the Koch (I originally typed--Kock--was that intentional?) brothers and their willingness to spend MILLIONS(!) on candidates and causes.  They will soon own the process—SCARY!

Actually, I agree with the city leaders of Greece City, New York in their desire to open their meetings with a prayer!  For God’s sake, we need guidance from a power much higher than what we have from our elected officials.  We NEED MORE PRAYER.  It doesn’t have to be denominational of any kind, just ask for a Higher Power than who is sitting in the chairs to guide them and lead them into some kind of wisdom—obviously they have none of their own most of the time.

I really don’t care if 19 or 20 year olds can buy guns.  Most of my clients who are 13, 14, 15, have guns—can anyone say stolen?  I just don’t want AK-47’s on the street, and God forbid 50 Caliber rifles!

For the rest of you old white guys consumed with women’s bodies—get over it!  Just because you haven’t had any of it in years doesn’t mean you get to control our bodies now.  That means you Scalia, Alito, and Roberts!  Leave our bodies, our reproductive systems and our choices ALONE!

I will stay on top of this throughout the upcoming sessions.  It really is an obsession of mine.  Stay tuned for my over-blown opinions and some legal analysis.

PEACE—OUT!

MARY DE LA PEÑA, esq. and true independent.