The California Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling today in People v. Caballero, holding that a term of years sentence that is effectively a defacto life without parole sentence for a juvenile in a non-homicide case violates the U.S. Supreme Court's 2010 decision in Graham v. Florida. In Graham, the Supreme Court ruled that juveniles convicted of non-homicide offenses could not be sentenced to life without parole under the Eighth Amendment. In its unanimous decision today, the California Court wrote: "We must determine here whether a 110-year-to-life sentence imposed on a juvenile convicted of nonhomicide offenses contravenes Graham's mandate against cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment. We conclude it does."
Rodrigo Caballero was represented by California attorney David Durchfort. Caballero was 16 years old when he opened fire on three teenage boys who were members of a rival gang, injuring one of the teens. Caballero was found guilty on three counts of attempted homicide and was sentenced to a term of 110 years, making him eligible for parole consideration in 2112 – a century from now. "For the first time, a state Supreme Court ruled that very lengthy prison terms for juveniles who did not kill are unconstitutional if the sentence does not afford a meaningful opportunity of release," says Durchfort. "Rodrigo Caballero's family is grateful that he will now have that opportunity."
Juvenile Law Center filed an amicus brief on behalf of several national organizations in support of Mr. Caballero's position. Marsha Levick, Deputy Director and Chief Legal Counsel argued the case along with Mr. Durchfort before the California Supreme Court. Levick called on the court to recognize that a term of years sentence that precludes any meaningful opportunity for a youth to demonstrate maturity and rehabilitation violates the high court's decision in Graham.
"With this decision, the California Supreme Court has taken a bold, critical step in extending the Graham decision to terms of years sentences which are the equivalent of life without parole in all but name only," says Levick. "We believe that hundreds, if not thousands, of juvenile offenders are currently serving similar harsh sentences for non-homicide crimes in several other states across the country. This decision should have implications well beyond California's borders."
The California Supreme Court also made clear that the decision could be applied retroactively, holding that "defendants who were sentenced for crimes they committed as juveniles who seek to modify life without parole or equivalent defacto sentences already imposed may file petitions for a writ of habeas corpus in the trial court in order to allow the court to weigh the mitigating evidence in determining the extent of incarceration required before parole hearings."
Richard Braucher, Pacific Defender Center Board Member, also filed an amicus brief on behalf of advocates in California who supported Mr. Caballero's position. "We're elated that the California Supreme Court sensibly and resolutely applied the mandate of Graham to de facto JLWOP sentences in California. While the remedy, permitting the filing of writ petitions, raises a number of procedural and strategic questions going forward, the criminal defense bar in California is buoyed by this important decision which brings great hope to our clients."
The California Court held "that sentencing a juvenile offender for a non-homicide offense to a term of years with a parole eligibility date that falls outside the juvenile offender's natural life expectancy constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment… [T]he state may not deprive them at sentencing of a meaningful opportunity to demonstrate their rehabilitation and fitness to reenter society in the future."
