Archive

Archive for May, 2014

No new cases tomorrow

May 21, 2014 Comments off

The Cal. Supremes will issue no new cases tomorrow, Thursday.

Advertisements

Execution of sentence suspended doesn’t permit a realignment sentence

May 19, 2014 Comments off

Execution of sentence suspended doesn’t permit a realignment sentence

People v. Scott

S211670

“We conclude that the Realignment Act is not applicable to defendants whose state prison sentences were imposed and suspended prior to October 1, 2011. Upon revocation and termination of such a defendant’s probation, the trial court ordering execution of the previously imposed sentence must order the sentence to be served in state prison according to the terms of the original sentence, even if the defendant otherwise qualifies for incarceration in county jail under the terms of the Realignment Act.”

http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S211670.PDF

No new criminal cases tomorrow

May 14, 2014 Comments off

The Cal. Supremes will issue no new criminal cases tomorrow, Thursday.

No cases Monday

May 9, 2014 Comments off

The Cal. Supremes will issue no new cases Monday.

No cases tomorrow

May 7, 2014 Comments off

The Cal. Supremes will issue no new cases tomorrow, Thursday.

Two death sentences affirmed

May 5, 2014 Comments off

Cal. law does not create a presumption of LWOP for juveniles

May 5, 2014 Comments off

Cal. law does not create a presumption of LWOP for juveniles

People v. Superior Court (Gutierrez and Moffett)

S206365

“As explained below, we hold that section 190.5(b), properly construed, confers discretion on a trial court to sentence a 16- or 17-year-old juvenile convicted of special circumstance murder to life without parole or to 25 years to life, with no presumption in favor of life without parole. We further hold that Miller requires a trial court, in exercising its sentencing discretion, to consider the “distinctive attributes of youth” and how those attributes “diminish the penological justifications for imposing the harshest sentences on juvenile offenders” before imposing life without parole on a juvenile offender. (Miller, supra, 567 U.S. at p. __ [132 S.Ct. at p. 2465].) Because the sentencing regime created by section 190.5(b) authorizes and indeed requires consideration of the distinctive attributes of youth highlighted in Miller, we find no constitutional infirmity with section 190.5(b) once it is understood not to impose a presumption in favor of life without parole.

“Because the two defendants here were sentenced before Miller in accordance with the interpretation of section 190.5(b) prevailing at the time (see Guinn, supra, 28 Cal.App.4th at p. 1142), we remand for resentencing in light of the principles set forth in Miller and this opinion.”

http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S206365.PDF