California Supreme Court Provides Second Chance for Inmates Sentenced to Life Without Parole as Juveniles

The California Supreme Court recently made it clear that statutes cannot have a presumption in favor of life without parole for juvenile offenders.

In the wake of the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Miller v. Alabama in June 2012, banning mandatory juvenile life without parole sentences (JLWOP), Juvenile Law Center has argued in cases across the country on behalf of inmates who were sentenced to mandatory JLWOP before Miller was decided.

As kids, these inmates were sentenced to spend the rest of their lives in prison, without any consideration of their age, personal history, or other influences. There was no consideration as to whether they were truly unable to be rehabilitated and to ever rejoin society—all factors that Miller says courts must now consider before sentencing a kid to JLWOP.

The California Supreme Court’s decision earlier this month, in State v. Gutierrez and State v. Moffett, opens the door for inmates sentenced to JLWOP before Miller to be eligible for new sentencing hearings. The judges will now have to take into account the factors listed above and as set forth in the United States Supreme Court’s opinion in Miller. 

In California, the state Penal Code dictates that 16- and 17-year-olds convicted of murder should receive sentences of life without parole or, “at the discretion of the court,” 25 years to life. Gutierrez and Moffett were both 17 when they were convicted of murder. They both received sentences of life without parole.

At issue in this case was the question of whether the Penal Code truly provides for discretion in sentencing—i.e., whether Gutierrez and Moffett, and other teens in their situation, ever really had a chance of not getting life without parole. The Court’s opinion states, “For two decades … [this section of the Penal Code] has been construed by our Courts of Appeal and trial courts as creating a presumption in favor of life without parole as the appropriate penalty for juveniles convicted of … murder.”

In other words, the Court acknowledged that California courts have been routinely handing down life without parole sentences to 16- and 17-year-olds convicted of murder, without even considering the 25-years-to-life sentencing option—meaning that life without parole sentences have essentially been mandatory for these teens.

In our amicus briefs to the California Supreme Court (State v. Moffett; State v. Gutierrez), Juvenile Law Center argued that because California’s Penal Code imposes mandatory life without parole sentences on teens—a sentence that Miller says is “cruel and unusual” and should be uncommon—it is unconstitutional. We argued that Gutierrez and Moffett should receive new sentences that take into account their histories, mitigating circumstances, and the specific nature of their crimes, as Miller dictates.

The California Supreme Court agreed and specifically referenced the argument of Juvenile Law Center Deputy Director and Chief Counsel Marsha Levick in its opinion; Marsha argued on behalf of amici before the Court. The Supreme Court held that because the trial courts did not take into account the Miller factors and did not consider issuing an alternative sentence, both Gutierrez and Moffett should be resentenced.

We applaud the California Supreme Court for this decision. We also congratulate attorneys Joe Shipp and Jean Matulis, counsel for Moffett and Guttierez.