People v. Gutierrez
Juvenile Law Center filed an amicus curiae brief in support of Andrew Moffett and Luis Gutierrez, who were convicted of special circumstances murder under California statute 190.5(b), which carries a presumptive sentence of life without parole.
Juvenile Law Center's brief in each case argued that their sentences are unconstitutional pursuant to the United States Supreme Court's ruling in Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012), which held that the mandatory imposition of life without parole sentences on juvenile offenders is unconstitutional. Under current California law, the presumptive sentence for any juvenile age 16 or older convicted of first degree murder with special circumstances is life imprisonment without the possibility of parole (see Cal. Penal Code § 190.5(b)).
Our briefs argued that California's statute effectively imposes life without parole on juveniles in a mandatory fashion, in violation of Miller, as life without parole is the mandatory penalty unless the judge finds justification to deviate from this presumptive penalty. We further argued that California Penal Code § 190.5(b) fails to impose an individualized sentence as required by Miller and contradicts Miller's requirement that juvenile life without parole sentences be uncommon. For these reasons, we argued that both sentences must be vacated and new constitutional sentences imposed.
Moffett was convicted of felony, or second degree, murder. In his case, Juvenile Law Center argued that any life without parole sentence for a juvenile convicted of felony murder is inconsistent with adolescent development and neuroscience research and is unconstitutional pursuant to Miller and Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010), which held that a life without parole sentence can never be imposed upon a juvenile when there is no finding that the defendant either killed or intended to kill. Because California's felony murder statute requires no finding that the defendant actually killed or intended to kill, it creates a legal fiction in which intent to kill is inferred from the intent to commit the underlying felony. Such intent cannot be inferred when the offender is a juvenile, and thus life without parole is unconstitutional in such cases.
On May 5, the California Supreme Court ruled that, because the defendants were sentenced before Miller in accordance with the interpretation of California's Penal Code prevailing at the time, their cases are remanded for resentencing in light of the principles set forth in Miller.