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