For decades, California’s criminal justice system sentenced young people to spend the rest of their lives in prison—often without ever asking the most important question:

Who are they now?

Many incarcerated individuals committed their crimes as teenagers or young adults, before their brains were fully developed, before trauma was treated, and before they had any real understanding of the permanent consequences of their actions. Yet the law treated them as if growth, maturity, and rehabilitation were impossible.

That is changing.

SB 672 California parole law represents the next major evolution in California’s youth offender parole framework. While the bill is not yet law, it signals a clear legislative intent: to expand parole eligibility, strengthen youth-focused review, and ensure that people who committed crimes at a young age receive a meaningful opportunity to demonstrate rehabilitation.

At Power Trial Lawyers, we represent incarcerated individuals and families across California in parole hearings, youth offender parole matters, and post-conviction relief. We do not wait for laws to pass before preparing cases. The people who prepare early are the ones who win their freedom.

This guide explains SB 672 in full—what it is, who it would help, how it interacts with Penal Code 3051, and how to prepare now so you are ready the moment the law takes effect.

Important Update: Is SB 672 California Parole Law in Effect?

As of now, SB 672 California parole law has not yet been enacted. The bill has passed the California Senate but is still pending further legislative action, including approval by the Assembly and the Governor’s signature.

This distinction matters.

If SB 672 becomes law, there will be no grace period. The Board of Parole Hearings will immediately begin applying the new framework to eligible cases. Individuals and families who wait until the law is final will already be behind.

At Power Trial Lawyers, we are actively preparing parole cases under the anticipated SB 672 framework so our clients are positioned to succeed the moment eligibility opens.

Are You or a Loved One Impacted by SB 672 California Parole Law?

This law is not abstract. It was written for real people sitting in California prisons today.

You or your loved one may be impacted if:

• The offense occurred before age 26
• The sentence includes 15-to-life, 25-to-life, or life without parole
• A prior parole hearing was denied or never granted
• You were told there was “no chance” of release

Families contact us every week after decades of being told nothing could be done.

SB 672 California parole law challenges that assumption.

What Is SB 672 California Parole Law—and Why It Matters Even Before It Passes

California Senate Bill 672 is proposed legislation designed to expand and strengthen youth offender parole eligibility under California law.

In plain English, SB 672 California parole law would:

1. Expand parole eligibility for people who committed crimes as young adults
2. Strengthen how youth rehabilitation must be evaluated at parole hearings
3. Create broader review opportunities for individuals serving extreme sentences, including life without parole

The bill is grounded in:

• Modern neuroscience showing brain development continues into the mid-20s
• U.S. Supreme Court precedent recognizing diminished culpability of youth
• California’s ongoing commitment to criminal justice reform

Even though SB 672 is not yet law, it reflects where parole law is going—and how the Board of Parole Hearings will be thinking when these cases are reviewed.

The Legal Foundation: Penal Code 3051 Explained

To understand SB 672 California parole law, you must understand Penal Code 3051, because SB 672 builds on it.

What Penal Code 3051 Does

Penal Code 3051 requires the Board of Parole Hearings to provide a youth offender parole hearing to individuals who committed a “controlling offense” before age 26, after serving a specified number of years.

At that hearing, the board must give great weight to:

• The diminished culpability of youth
• Subsequent growth and maturity
• Evidence of rehabilitation

Why Penal Code 3051 Was Not Enough

Despite its promise, PC 3051 left significant gaps:

• Confusing and inconsistent eligibility timelines
• Limited clarity for life without parole cases
• Parole boards often minimized youth factors
• Families were left uncertain about rights and dates

SB 672 California parole law is designed to close those gaps.

How SB 672 Would Change California Parole Law

If enacted, SB 672 California parole law would make several critical changes:

1. Clear Reinforcement of Age-Based Eligibility

The bill reinforces that individuals who committed crimes up to age 25 are entitled to youth-focused parole review, consistent with neuroscience and existing case law.

2. Expanded and Clarified Parole Timelines

SB 672 would strengthen parole eligibility benchmarks—commonly 15, 20, or 25 years—so eligible individuals receive timely and meaningful review.

3. Mandatory Youth Rehabilitation Analysis

The parole board would be required to explicitly analyze:

• Youthful immaturity at the time of the offense
• Psychological and emotional development
• Evidence of rehabilitation and insight

This analysis would not be optional.

Who Would Qualify Under SB 672 California Parole Law?

Eligibility depends on three key factors:

1. Age at the Time of the Controlling Offense

The offense driving the longest sentence must have occurred before age 26.

2. Sentence Type

If enacted, SB 672 would apply to:

• Determinate sentences
• Indeterminate life sentences
• 25-to-life sentences
• Certain life without parole cases

3. Statutory Exclusions

Some exclusions may apply, but many people assume they are excluded when they are not. Proper legal review is essential.

Life Without Parole and SB 672: A Path Many Don’t Realize Exists

Life without parole once meant exactly that.

That assumption is no longer absolute.

California courts and lawmakers now recognize that:

• Mandatory LWOP for youth raises constitutional concerns
• Youth offender parole principles may apply even to extreme sentences
• SB 672 would strengthen arguments for review in qualifying LWOP cases

Not every LWOP case qualifies—but many do, especially where:

• The sentence was imposed before modern youth jurisprudence
• The individual demonstrates extraordinary rehabilitation
• The law allows for parole board review

These cases require high-level legal strategy.

What Is a Youth Parole Eligible Date?

A youth parole eligible date (YPED) is the earliest date the Board of Parole Hearings must conduct a youth offender parole hearing.

It is calculated based on:

• Sentence structure
• Age at offense
• Applicable statutes (Penal Code 3051 and, if enacted, SB 672)

CDCR records are often incorrect. We routinely audit eligibility dates and force compliance with the law.

What Happens at a Youth Offender Parole Hearing?

A youth offender parole hearing is a formal, adversarial proceeding where release is decided.

The board evaluates:

• The commitment offense
• Disciplinary history
• Psychological evaluations
• Insight and accountability
• Parole plans and community support
• Victim input
• Attorney advocacy

Under youth offender law, the board must determine whether the individual currently poses an unreasonable risk to public safety, with youth factors heavily weighted.

Psychological Evaluations: Often the Deciding Factor in Youth Offender Parole Cases

In youth offender parole hearings, including those governed by Penal Code 3051 and the proposed SB 672 California parole law, psychological evaluations are often the single most influential piece of evidence before the Board of Parole Hearings.

In practice, parole commissioners frequently rely on the psychological report as a summary judgment of risk—especially in serious or violent cases. A strong evaluation can neutralize decades-old facts. A weak or poorly framed evaluation can sink an otherwise well-prepared case.

This is why psychological evaluations are not an afterthought. They are strategic evidence.

What the Parole Board Is Really Looking For

Contrary to popular belief, the board is not asking whether the person has “changed” in an abstract sense. The board is assessing whether the individual currently poses an unreasonable risk to public safety, taking into account youth-related mitigating factors.

A properly prepared psychological evaluation addresses this question directly.

Evaluators typically assess:

1. Risk of Recidivism

This is the board’s primary concern.

The evaluator analyzes:

• Static risk factors (age at offense, criminal history)
• Dynamic risk factors (current insight, coping skills, impulse control)
• Protective factors (education, programming, family support)

In youth offender cases, a skilled evaluator explains why static factors tied to youth carry less predictive weight over time, especially after decades of incarceration.

2. Emotional and Psychological Maturity

Under youth offender parole law, maturity is critical.

The evaluation should document:

• Cognitive development since the offense
• Improved decision-making capacity
• Ability to regulate emotions under stress
• Growth in empathy and accountability

The parole board is looking for measurable development, not vague claims of change.

3. Trauma History and Its Impact

Many incarcerated youth entered the system with:

• Childhood abuse or neglect
• Exposure to violence
• Untreated mental health conditions
• Substance abuse rooted in trauma

A competent psychological evaluation does not excuse the offense—but it contextualizes behavior in a way the law requires the board to consider.

This is especially important under SB 672 California parole law, which emphasizes understanding youth behavior through a developmental and rehabilitative lens.

4. Rehabilitation and Insight

The evaluator examines whether the individual:

• Accepts responsibility for the offense
• Understands the harm caused
• Can articulate internal change
• Has developed realistic relapse-prevention strategies

Superficial answers are easily detected and often fatal to parole chances. Insight must be deep, specific, and internally consistent.

Why the Choice of Psychologist Matters

Not all psychologists are qualified to conduct parole evaluations—and many who are licensed do not understand parole law.

This is a critical distinction.

A clinician unfamiliar with:

• The Board of Parole Hearings’ decision-making process
• Youth offender parole standards
• Penal Code 3051 requirements
• The anticipated SB 672 framework

may produce a report that is technically sound but legally ineffective.

At Power Trial Lawyers, we work with forensic psychologists who specialize in youth offender parole cases. These experts understand:

• How parole commissioners read reports
• What language raises red flags
• How to frame rehabilitation without minimizing responsibility
• How to integrate neuroscience, trauma, and risk assessment into a legally persuasive narrative

Common Mistakes That Destroy Parole Cases

We routinely see parole denials caused by avoidable psychological evaluation errors, including:

• Overreliance on static risk factors
• Minimizing the offense or appearing defensive
• Failing to address prior misconduct directly
• Using generic or boilerplate language
• Ignoring youth-specific legal standards

Once a negative evaluation is submitted, the damage is often irreversible until the next hearing cycle.

How We Use Psychological Evaluations Strategically

At Power Trial Lawyers, psychological evaluations are:

• Timed strategically—not rushed
• Coordinated with the overall parole narrative
• Integrated with programming records and family support
• Reviewed line-by-line before submission

We treat the evaluation as expert testimony in a freedom hearing, not as a formality.

Bottom Line

In youth offender parole cases—and especially those anticipated under SB 672 California parole law—a psychological evaluation can be the difference between:

• Release and another decade inside
• Recognition of rehabilitation and permanent denial

If this process is not handled correctly, everything else becomes irrelevant.

That is why this step must be guided by attorneys who understand both the law and the psychology of parole.

SB 672 vs. Penal Code 3051: Key Differences

Why Time Is Critical: Don’t Wait for SB 672 to Become Law

Waiting is the most common—and costly—mistake families make.

If SB 672 is enacted:

• There will be no delay before hearings begin
• Preparation takes months, not weeks
• The parole board will face overwhelming volume

Experienced parole counsel prepares before laws take effect.

SB 672 California Parole Law – Frequently Asked Questions

Talk to Power Trial Lawyers: Your Second Chance Starts Here

SB 672 California parole law is not yet in effect—but its impact is already real.

The law is moving. The parole board is watching. And preparation—not hope—is what determines outcomes.

Every year we see the same pattern: People who wait lose time. People who prepare gain leverage.

If you or a loved one may qualify under SB 672 California parole law, the most important step you can take right now is to speak with a lawyer who understands youth offender parole, life sentences, and the Board of Parole Hearings.

At Power Trial Lawyers, we do not treat parole as a formality. We treat it as freedom litigation.

Call Power Trial Lawyers at 888-808-2179 or Submit a confidential online inquiry today

You cannot change the past. But with the right strategy, you can fight for your future.

Understanding Youth Offender Parole: A Paradigm Shift in Juvenile Justice

Youth Offender Parole represents a paradigm shift in how the criminal justice system treats those who committed crimes before reaching full adulthood. Historically, the justice system has been criticized for imposing harsh sentences on young offenders without accounting for the significant psychological and neurological differences between adolescents and adults. Research shows that parts of the brain responsible for impulse control, decision-making, and understanding long-term consequences are not fully developed until the mid-20s. As a result, many young offenders were sentenced to life terms without a realistic possibility of parole, effectively condemning them for actions taken in the throes of youth.

California’s Youth Offender Parole law addresses these concerns by mandating that the Board of Parole Hearings (BPH) give “great weight” to youth-related factors when determining parole suitability. These factors include:

• Age at the Time of the Crime: Recognizing that younger individuals have less impulse control and a diminished ability to understand the full consequences of their actions.
• Level of Maturity: Evaluating the offender’s maturity level at the time of the crime, including susceptibility to peer pressure and the influence of older co-defendants.
• Capacity for Change: Considering evidence of the offender’s growth and rehabilitation since their incarceration.

The BPH is required to place significant emphasis on these factors when making parole decisions, meaning that even those who committed serious offenses may now have an opportunity for early release if they can demonstrate substantial personal growth.

Legal Eligibility for Youth Offender Parole: Are You or Your Loved One Qualified?

Eligibility for Youth Offender Parole is determined by several specific criteria. Understanding these criteria is crucial for those seeking to navigate this legal avenue:

• Age at the Time of the Offense: The crime must have been committed before the offender turned 26 years old. This broad age range reflects the scientific understanding that brain development continues well into the mid-20s.
• Type of Sentence: The individual must be serving either a determinate sentence (a fixed number of years) or an indeterminate sentence (such as life with the possibility of parole) for a crime committed before age 26. Additionally, those sentenced to life without the possibility of parole (LWOP) for crimes committed before age 18 may also be eligible.
• Exclusions: Certain categories of offenders are excluded from YOP hearings, such as those with “three strikes” sentences or “one strike” sex offense sentences. Additionally, if an individual commits a new crime after turning 26, particularly if it involves “malice aforethought” (e.g., first-degree murder, attempted murder), they may be excluded from YOP eligibility.

Navigating these eligibility criteria can be complex, especially when dealing with prior convictions or complicated sentencing structures. Consulting with an experienced Orange County Criminal Appeals and Defense Lawyer is essential to ensure that all potential avenues for parole are thoroughly explored.

Franklin Hearings: Building a Strong Case for Parole

A critical component of the Youth Offender Parole process is the Franklin hearing, named after the landmark case People v. Franklin (2016). This hearing allows offenders to establish a record of mitigating evidence related to their youth, which was not presented during the original sentencing. The importance of a Franklin hearing cannot be overstated—it provides an opportunity to document the offender’s immaturity at the time of the crime and their subsequent growth and rehabilitation.

During a Franklin hearing, the court will consider:

• Youth-Related Factors: The circumstances surrounding the offender’s life at the time of the crime, including family environment, education, and any history of abuse or neglect.
• Rehabilitative Efforts: Evidence of the offender’s efforts to reform, such as participation in educational programs, vocational training, and therapy while incarcerated.
• Expert Testimony: Psychological evaluations and expert testimony can be pivotal in establishing the ongoing development and rehabilitation of the offender, reinforcing the argument for early parole.

A well-prepared Franklin hearing can significantly enhance the chances of securing a favorable outcome at a Youth Offender Parole hearing. However, this requires meticulous preparation and a deep understanding of both the legal standards and the psychological principles involved. An experienced Orange County Criminal Appeals and Defense Attorney can play a crucial role in gathering the necessary evidence, presenting it effectively, and advocating on behalf of the offender.

The Comprehensive Risk Assessment (CRA): A Key Determinant of Parole Outcomes

One of the most critical elements of the Youth Offender Parole process is the Comprehensive Risk Assessment (CRA), a report prepared by a BPH psychologist or by an expert. This assessment evaluates the offender’s potential risk of reoffending if released on parole. The CRA considers factors such as the nature of the original crime, the offender’s behavior in prison, and any psychological issues that may influence future behavior.

Working with the right expert is instrumental to a strong and meaningful outcome. Consult with your lawyer to assess who the expert assigned to your case will be.

The CRA is a double-edged sword—it can either bolster or undermine an offender’s chances of securing parole. A high-risk assessment can lead to parole denial, often for several years. Conversely, a low-risk assessment can support the case for early release. Moreover, choosing the right expert is essential to a strong and comprehensive risk assessment. Preparing for the CRA involves:

• Reviewing Past Reports: Understanding past psychological evaluations and probation reports to anticipate the issues that may arise during the CRA.
• Addressing Deficiencies: Engaging in therapy or rehabilitation programs that target the specific areas of concern identified in previous assessments.
• Legal Guidance: Working closely with an attorney to prepare for the CRA, ensuring that all positive developments are clearly documented and communicated.

Given the weight the BPH places on the CRA, it is imperative that offenders and their attorneys approach this assessment with a strategic plan. A Criminal Defense Lawyer in Orange County with experience in Youth Offender Parole cases can provide the necessary guidance and support to navigate this critical phase.

Timing Is Everything: Understanding Your Parole Eligibility Date

The timing of your Youth Offender Parole hearing is determined by the length and type of your sentence. This timing is crucial because it dictates when you will be eligible for a hearing and, potentially, for release.

• Determinate Sentences: For those serving a determinate sentence, the parole eligibility date typically occurs after 14 years of incarceration.
• Indeterminate Sentences: For indeterminate sentences of less than 25 years to life, the eligibility date is after 19 years. For sentences of 25 years to life or more, or for those sentenced to life without the possibility of parole for crimes committed before age 18, the eligibility date is after 24 years.

Understanding these timelines is critical for strategic planning. Early preparation is key—engaging in rehabilitative programs, maintaining a spotless record, and consistently documenting your progress are all vital steps in building a strong case for parole. Moreover, your eligibility date can sometimes be adjusted based on factors like good behavior or participation in educational programs, making it even more essential to stay proactive throughout your incarceration.

The Strategic Advantage of Legal Representation

The complexity of the Youth Offender Parole process cannot be overstated. From determining eligibility to navigating Franklin hearings and preparing for the CRA, each step requires careful legal maneuvering and strategic decision-making. This is why the expertise of an Orange County Criminal Defense and Appeals Lawyer is not just beneficial—it is indispensable.

• Tailored Legal Strategies: A seasoned attorney will develop a personalized strategy that addresses the specific circumstances of your case. This includes identifying key legal arguments, gathering supporting evidence, and anticipating potential challenges.
• Expert Witness Coordination: Your attorney can bring in expert witnesses, such as psychologists or social workers, to provide testimony on your behalf, strengthening your case for parole.
• Continuous Support: The parole process is emotionally and mentally taxing. An experienced lawyer provides not only legal support but also guidance and reassurance throughout the process, helping you stay focused and prepared.

Why Contacting an Orange County Criminal Defense Law Firm is Crucial

The stakes in a Youth Offender Parole hearing are incredibly high. A favorable decision could mean early release and the opportunity to rebuild your life, while a denial could extend your incarceration for years. Given these high stakes, it is essential to have a legal team that understands the intricacies of the law, the psychology of rehabilitation, and the specific dynamics of the Orange County legal system.

• Local Expertise: An Orange County Criminal Defense Law Firm is well-versed in the local courts, judges, and parole board members. This local knowledge can provide a strategic advantage in preparing and presenting your case.
• Comprehensive Legal Support: From the initial consultation to post-hearing follow-up, a dedicated legal team will ensure that every aspect of your case is handled with the utmost care and professionalism.
• Proven Track Record: A law firm with a strong history of successful parole outcomes can provide the confidence and assurance that you are in capable hands.

If you or someone you care about is eligible for Youth Offender Parole, now is the time to act. The difference between a successful and unsuccessful parole hearing often comes down to the quality of legal representation. Don’t leave your future to chance—contact a reputable Orange County Criminal Defense Law Firm today to schedule a consultation. With the right legal strategy, you can present a compelling case for your release and take the first step toward rebuilding your life.

Every day counts in the preparation for your hearing. Reach out to an experienced attorney who can guide you through this complex process, advocate for your rights, and help you secure the best possible outcome. Your future may depend on it.

At Power Trial Lawyers, we believe that knowledge is power, especially when it comes to California sentencing law. We recognize that California’s sentencing laws are extraordinarily complex, and, adding to the difficulties, they frequently change. But at Power Trial Lawyers, that’s our job. We are passionate about achieving superior results for our clients in criminal defense and appeals cases. This article will cover Assembly Bill 600, California’s Racial Justice Act (AB 256), Penal Code 1172.1, Penal Code 1170(d) (People v. Heard), Penal Code 1385, and Assembly Bill 333.

1. Assembly Bill 600 – Judge Initiated Resentencing

Passed in 2023, Assembly Bill 600 (“AB 600”) aims to address sentencing disparities and offers relief to inmates who may have been unfairly sentenced. The bill, which is now codified as part of California Penal Code § 1172.1, gives courts the ability to recall and resentence inmates if their original sentence was longer than it would be under current laws. This helps address disparities in sentencing laws, especially if that disparity is due to race or culture. Or even more, if the client is particularly eligible and has suffered an unfair sentence. This new resentencing initiative gives judges the ability to recall sentences, placing them directly on the court’s calendar without any necessary recommendation from the district attorney’s office or the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitations (“CDCR”). 

Eligible candidates include those whose sentences were enhanced due to factors that are no longer considered or no longer considered in the same way, such as certain prior convictions. The key eligibility criteria involve proving that the original sentence would be shorter if imposed under the current legal framework.

2. Racial Justice Act (AB 256)

The Racial Justice Act, enacted through Assembly Bill 256 (“AB 256”), aims to ensure fairness and equality within the judicial system by addressing systemic racism. More specifically, this law recognizes the fact that race has historically played a very real role in criminal sentencing and seeks to rectify the impact of racial discrimination throughout the criminal trial process. The Racial Justice Act allows individuals to challenge their sentences if they can demonstrate that racial bias played a role in their prosecution, sentencing, or in the prosecution’s ability to obtain a conviction. Often, this racial disparity can be seen right in the transcripts where such a racial bias is clear. In other cases, this disparity is demonstrated through the sentence administered to an inmate’s case versus the common norm for others with similar or like case factors. This second approach is much more difficult and may require unique arguments to demonstrate. 

To be eligible, an inmate must provide substantial evidence of racial discrimination, such as biased statements made by prosecutors or statistical data showing racial disparities in sentencing patterns at the time the inmate was sentenced. If you believe you may have a good case meeting the Racial Justice Act, do not fight it alone. You should consult with an attorney to determine the best steps moving forward. 

3. Penal Code 1172.1

Penal Code § 1172.1 provides the mechanism for resentencing in cases where the original sentence is no longer in the interest of justice or was disproportionately harsh. It empowers the court to recall a sentence and resentence an inmate if it finds that the original sentencing was excessive. Historically, a judge had only 120 days to recall a sentence, but under AB 600, that 120-day limitation no longer applies, and a judge can order a resentencing hearing at any time. The CDCR or the District Attorney’s office for the county where the inmate was convicted can also recommend that an inmate be resentenced. 

Eligibility under § 1172.1 often requires a review of the circumstances surrounding the case, including the inmate’s behavior in prison, especially their rehabilitative efforts. There is no requirement to retain an attorney if you wish to pursue this form of resentencing. However, resentencing pursuant to Penal Code 1172.1 takes great sophistication and skill, and it can be quite complex. It is recommended to consult with an experienced criminal defense and appeals lawyer if you wish to pursue resentencing pursuant to Penal Code 1172.1. 

4. Penal Code 1170(d) Resentencing (People v. Heard)

In the case People v. Heard, a California court held that a juvenile who was sentenced to the functional equivalent of life without the possibility of parole should be able to rely on Penal Code section 1170(d)(1) when seeking a resentencing. The court held that failure to allow such a petition would violate the inmate’s rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14^th Amendment to the United States Constitution. Thus, to be eligible for a Heard Petition, an inmate must have been sentenced to the “functional equivalent” of life without the possibility of parole, spent at least 15 years incarcerated, and committed the offense before they were 18 years old. 

People v. Heard provides a strong path forward for offenders who were convicted under the age of 18, and who otherwise meet the criteria. This form of resentencing can be quite complex, and may require much negotiations and legal arguments. While an attorney is not required, it is highly recommended to consult with a California Criminal Defense and appeals lawyer to determine the best arguments pursuant to People v. Heard.

5. California Penal Code 1385

Penal Code § 1385 grants judges the discretion to dismiss charges or strike sentencing enhancements when doing so is in the interest of justice. This provision can be particularly useful in cases where sentencing enhancements would resulted in disproportionately long sentences. Moreover, when used with other laws, this penal code section can be a defendant’s strongest argument in any sentencing setting.

To be eligible, an inmate must typically show that the dismissal of certain charges or enhancements would serve justice better than their enforcement. This code is often invoked in sentencing hearings where there could be a harshly disproportionate enhancement or sentence.

6. Assembly Bill 333

Assembly Bill 333 (“AB 333”) focuses on gang-related sentencing enhancements. AB 333 raised the bar for prosecutors to use gang enhancements as well as provide relief for those who are serving sentences comprised in part by a gang enhancement. For example, AB 333 limits prosecutors’ ability to obtain a gang enhancement by requiring more stringent proof that the crime was committed for the benefit of a gang. The law also provides relief to those who were given enhanced sentences based on allegations of gang involvement without substantial evidence. To qualify for resentencing under AB 333, an inmate must demonstrate that their original sentencing was based on insufficient evidence of gang activity or that their actions did not directly benefit a gang. It is important to note this bill has limited retroactive application, and whether it may apply to your case is a fact-specific analysis.

If you or a loved one believes AB 333 may impact their case, it is recommended to consult with a California Criminal Defense and Appeals attorney.

How a Lawyer Can Help

Understanding these resentencing options can provide a pathway to a reduced sentence. However, each option has specific eligibility criteria, and determining eligibility can be very challenging. Not only that, but pursuing the wrong type of relief (or the right type of relief at the wrong time or in the wrong manner) can have long-lasting effects on the future of your case.

An experienced criminal defense and appeals lawyer can advise you on all your options to ensure that you pursue the resentencing options that are best suited for your case. An attorney can also assist with the preparation of your petition, ensuring that the judge is presented with every reason why you are deserving of a resentencing hearing. For example, many of these resentencing options either depend on or are strengthened by strong evidence of rehabilitation. A post-conviction attorney will know how to obtain the necessary evidence to establish that you’ve been rehabilitated and how to present it in the most compelling way possible.

Consult with a Criminal Defense and Appeals Law Firm

If you believe that you or a loved one may qualify for relief under any of these provisions, reach out to the respected California Criminal Defense and A

ppeals lawyers at Power Trial Lawyers for assistance. We offer free consultations, during which we will answer your questions, outline your options, and explain what we will do to help you obtain a resentencing hearing. You can reach our California Criminal Defense and Appeals lawyers by calling (888) 808-2179. You can also connect with us through our secure online contact form. 

**The content in this article was written in July of 2024 and may be subject to change. If you believe you qualify for resentencing or are facing a sentencing hearing, consult with an attorney for up-to-date information in regard to your specific case.**

Introduction to Direct Appeals

Any person convicted of a crime in California has the right to a direct appeal from the final judgment, typically the commitment to prison or other sentencing orders. Direct appeals are also available to those who have been civilly committed as Mentally Disordered Offenders (MDOs) or Sexually Violent Predators (SVPs). The appeals process is an essential legal mechanism, allowing higher courts to review potential legal errors made during the trial or sentencing that could have affected the outcome.

Filing a Notice of Appeal

The first step in the appeals process is filing a notice of appeal. This notice must be filed within 60 days after the final judgment or order being appealed. The notice can be signed by the defendant or their attorney and must identify the case name, number, and the judgment being appealed. For those challenging the validity of a guilty or no contest plea, a request for a certificate of probable cause must also be filed.

Constructive Filing of a Late Notice of Appeal

In certain circumstances, individuals may be allowed to file a late notice of appeal under the principle of “constructive filing.” This can apply if, for example, the notice was timely delivered to prison staff for mailing but delayed, or if the defendant relied on assurances from their attorney that were not fulfilled. Constructive filing requires a motion with the court of appeal or a petition for writ of habeas corpus.

Issues Raised on Appeal After a Trial

Various legal issues can be raised on appeal, including violations of constitutional rights or state laws. However, the appeal must be based on evidence and proceedings recorded in the superior court. If the issue was not raised during the trial, the court of appeal may consider it forfeited unless it’s of constitutional importance or an objection in the superior court would have been futile.

Issues Raised on Appeal After a Guilty or No Contest Plea

Appeals following a guilty or no contest plea are more limited. Issues that can be raised include challenges to the denial of a motion to suppress illegally obtained evidence or claims that the court or prosecutor violated the plea bargain. Some appeals require a certificate of probable cause, such as those challenging the plea’s validity.

Appellate Counsel and Court Transcripts

Indigent appellants are entitled to appointed counsel and court transcripts provided at state expense. Appellate attorneys review trial records to identify potential appealable issues and prepare necessary briefs.

Record Correction and Augmentation

Appellate attorneys ensure the record is complete and may file motions to augment the record if additional documents or transcripts are needed. This ensures that all relevant materials are available for the court of appeal’s review.

Appellate Briefing

The appeals process involves multiple rounds of briefing. The appellant files an opening brief outlining the legal errors and desired remedies. The respondent, represented by the state, files a counter-brief, followed by the appellant’s reply brief. Supplemental briefs may be filed if new issues arise.

Oral Argument and Decision

The court of appeal may schedule oral arguments where attorneys can address the judges’ questions. Following the arguments, the court issues its decision, which could affirm, reverse, or modify the original judgment. The court might also remand the case for further proceedings.

Petition for Rehearing and Review

If dissatisfied with the court of appeal’s decision, parties can file a petition for rehearing or seek review by the California Supreme Court. The Supreme Court reviews cases of significant legal importance but grants review in only a small fraction of cases.

How a California Criminal Defense and Appeals Lawyer Can Help

Navigating the complexities of the appeals process requires the expertise of a California Criminal Defense and Appeals Lawyer. An experienced attorney can:

• Evaluate Eligibility: Assessing whether there are valid grounds for an appeal.
• Preparing and Filing Appeals: Ensuring all procedural requirements are met and presenting compelling arguments.
• Representation in Court: Advocating on behalf of the appellant during oral arguments and hearings.
• Post-Appeal Actions: Filing petitions for rehearing or seeking review by higher courts if necessary.

If you believe you or a loved one may have grounds for an appeal, contact our law firm today. You can consult with our attorney team by calling (888) 808-2179. Our California Criminal Defense and Appeals Lawyers are dedicated to providing the guidance and representation needed to navigate this complex process. Call us or submit a contact form to schedule a consultation and learn how we can help you achieve a fair and just outcome.

Background on Penal Code § 1172.1

Penal Code § 1172.1, formerly known as § 1170(d)(1) and § 1170.03, allows for the recall of a sentence and resentencing by a court at any point after the original sentencing. This provision is significant because it enables courts to modify sentences even after the appeals process has concluded. Recent legislative changes, including Assembly Bill 600 signed in October 2023, further expand the potential for resentencing under this statute, effective January 1, 2024.

The resentencing process can be initiated through various channels, including recommendations from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), the Board of Parole Hearings (BPH), district attorneys, and other law enforcement officials. Additionally, starting in 2024, pursuant to Assembly Bill 600, courts can independently initiate resentencing under certain circumstances, making the role of a knowledgeable attorney crucial in navigating these options. A detailed discussion of AB 600 can be found here.

Pathways to Resentencing: CDCR Recommendations

The CDCR plays a pivotal role in identifying candidates for resentencing. There are four primary scenarios where the CDCR might recommend an inmate for resentencing:

1. Sentencing Errors or Discrepancies: If there is a clear sentencing error or if new legislation renders the original sentence unlawful, CDCR staff can initiate a recommendation for resentencing.
2. Changes in Sentencing Laws: In cases where new laws could result in a reduced sentence, the CDCR reviews the individual’s records to determine eligibility. Specific criteria must be met, including a minimum of five years served and no serious rule violations within the past year.
3. Exceptional Conduct: Inmates demonstrating exemplary behavior and participation in rehabilitation programs over a significant period can be considered for resentencing. This requires a minimum of ten years served and no serious rule violations in the last five years.
4. Requests from Law Enforcement or Judicial Officials: In certain situations, such as assisting in a criminal investigation, recommendations for resentencing can be made by law enforcement or judicial officers.

The Role of District Attorneys

Each county district attorney’s office in California has discretion over which cases they will recommend for resentencing. While some DA offices actively pursue resentencing in specific case types, others may not engage in this process at all. Therefore, individuals seeking resentencing should consult with their county’s public defender or their original defense attorney for guidance.

Court-Initiated Resentencing

Effective January 1, 2024, courts in California can initiate resentencing on their own motion if there have been changes in the applicable sentencing laws or new case law. Although individuals cannot petition directly for court-initiated resentencing, they can present their cases to CDCR, the DA, or other relevant authorities to seek a recommendation. If unsuccessful, it is advisable to seek the assistance of a public defender or a private criminal defense attorney.

What to Expect During the Resentencing Process

If a court agrees to consider resentencing, the process involves several critical steps:

1. Appointment of Counsel: The court will appoint an attorney to represent the individual being considered for resentencing.
2. Status Conference: A status conference is set within 30 days of the recommendation.
3. Submission of Briefs: Both the defense and prosecution submit briefs presenting arguments for or against resentencing.
4. Hearing: A hearing is conducted where both sides can present testimony and arguments. The court must provide reasons for its decision to grant or deny resentencing.

Key Factors in Resentencing Decisions

The court considers various factors when deciding on resentencing, including:

• Psychological, Physical, or Childhood Trauma: Evidence that such factors contributed to the original crime.
• Post-Conviction Conduct: The individual’s disciplinary record, rehabilitation efforts, and current risk of violence.
• Changes in the Law: Any new laws that reduce sentences or offer judicial discretion for lesser penalties.
• Interest of Justice: Overall considerations of justice and fairness, including any new evidence that may undermine the original conviction.

How a Lawyer Can Help

Navigating the complexities of Penal Code § 1172.1 requires the expertise of a seasoned California Criminal Defense and Appeals Lawyer. An experienced attorney can:

• Evaluate Eligibility: Assess whether the case meets the criteria for resentencing.
• Prepare Recommendations: Work with CDCR staff, the DA, or other authorities to secure a recommendation for resentencing.
• Advocate in Court: Present compelling arguments and evidence in court to support the resentencing request.
• Appeal Decisions: If resentencing is denied, an attorney can assist in filing an appeal and representing the case at the appellate level.

If you believe you or a loved one may be eligible for resentencing under Penal Code § 1172.1, contact our law firm today by calling (888) 808-2179 or submitting a contact submission. Our team of dedicated attorneys is here to provide the guidance and representation needed to navigate this legal process. Call us or submit a contact form to schedule a consultation and learn more about how we can help you achieve a fair and just outcome.

1. What is the People v. Heard case about?

Answer: The People v. Heard case is pivotal in California juvenile sentencing law. It involves a juvenile offender, Frank Heard, sentenced to 23 years plus 80 years to life for crimes committed at ages 15 and 16. Heard filed a petition under Penal Code §1170(d)(1), which allows juveniles sentenced to life without parole to seek resentencing after serving 15 years. The Court of Appeal ruled that juveniles given the “functional equivalent” of life without parole could also request resentencing, ensuring equal protection under California law. This case is crucial for California criminal defense attorneys handling juvenile cases.

2. Who is eligible to file a petition under Penal Code §1170(d)(1)?

Answer: Eligibility for filing a petition under Penal Code §1170(d)(1) requires:

• Conviction for a crime committed before turning 18.
• A sentence equivalent to life without parole.
• Demonstrated remorse and rehabilitation.
• No prior juvenile adjudications for serious crimes before the offense.
• The crime must not involve torturing the victim or offenses against law enforcement or firefighters. For detailed guidance, consult a California criminal defense lawyer experienced in juvenile resentencing.

3. What factors must a judge consider during a resentencing hearing?

Answer: During a resentencing hearing, the judge considers:

• Whether the offense involved an adult co-defendant.
• The offender’s prior lack of adult support or supervision.
• Any psychological or physical trauma experienced by the offender.
• The offender’s potential for rehabilitation, including participation in rehabilitative, educational, or vocational programs.
• Evidence of remorse and maintenance of family ties or positive connections.
• Any disciplinary actions in the last five years and efforts to distance themselves from criminal influences. California criminal defense attorneys play a vital role in presenting these factors to the court.

4. How can the new law under People v. Heard help eligible individuals?

Answer: The law under People v. Heard can help in several ways:

• Juvenile offenders under 16 at the time of the crime may have their cases transferred back to juvenile court.
• Offenders aged 16-17 at the time of the offense may benefit from a new transfer hearing.
• Judges can lower the sentence, transfer the case to juvenile court, or maintain the current sentence. They cannot increase the sentence. For personalized advice, contact a knowledgeable California criminal defense lawyer.

5. What should be included in the petition for recall and resentencing?

Answer: The petition must include:

• Age at the time of the crime.
• Detailed sentence information.
• Confirmation of having served at least 15 years.
• Statements of remorse and evidence of rehabilitation.
• Information about not having committed certain serious offenses.
• Proof of mailing copies to the district attorney and the original defense attorney or public defender. California criminal defense attorneys can assist in preparing a comprehensive petition.

6. Are behavioral credits included in determining eligibility for filing a petition?

Answer: No, behavioral credits are not included in calculating the 15-year incarceration requirement. The individual must have physically served 15 years before filing a petition. For clarification, consult a California criminal defense attorney.

7. What is Senate Bill 1391 and how does it relate to juvenile offenders?

Answer: Senate Bill 1391, passed in 2019, amends Welfare and Institutions Code section 707 to prohibit transferring cases to adult court for offenders who were 14 or 15 years old at the time of the crime. Now, only individuals who were at least 16 years old can be transferred to adult court. This bill significantly impacts juvenile defense cases in California. For more information, contact a California criminal defense lawyer.

8. Can someone eligible for relief under Senate Bill 1437 or Senate Bill 775 file a petition under Penal Code §1170(d)(1)?

Answer: Yes, but individuals must be extremely careful and should consult a California criminal defense attorney before filing, as statements made in one petition can affect other petitions. Senate Bill 1437 and 775 allow resentencing for certain murder convictions, but filing for relief under both laws can have legal implications.

9. What happens if the court rejects my petition?

Answer: If a petition is rejected, the individual should resubmit another petition, addressing any issues highlighted by the court. If the reasons for rejection are unclear, consulting a California criminal defense attorney is advised.

10. Can I appeal the judge’s decision if my petition is denied?

Answer: Yes, if the petition to recall the sentence is denied, the decision can be appealed. Similarly, if the judge resentences the individual to the functional equivalent of life without parole, this decision can also be appealed. The notice of appeal must be filed within 60 days of the judge’s decision. For assistance with appeals, contact a California criminal defense lawyer.

How a California Criminal Defense Lawyer Can Help

This FAQ aims to provide comprehensive information for individuals seeking to understand and navigate the complexities of Penal Code §1170(d)(1) in the context of juvenile sentencing and the People v. Heard case. For personalized legal advice, consulting with a California criminal defense attorney is recommended. You can consult with one of our lawyers by calling (888) 808-2179 or submitting a contact submission here.

Understanding AB 600: An Evolution in Resentencing

AB 600 stands as a pioneering California law designed to augment judges’ discretion in ordering resentencing hearings for inmates serving extended sentences for serious crimes. To grasp the nuances of AB 600, it is crucial to contrast its provisions with the previous legal landscape.

Pre-AB 600 Resentencing Procedures: A Rigorous Path

Before AB 600, judges could only order resentencing hearings under specific circumstances, primarily relying on recommendations from the district attorney or the Board of Parole Hearings. However, the limitations imposed by Penal Code § 1172.1 often rendered this mechanism ineffective, given its narrow timeframe of 120 days post-commitment to state prison.

Furthermore, the discretionary nature of district attorneys and the Board of Parole in responding to § 1172.1 petitions led to instances where meticulously prepared petitions were filed away without due consideration. This incongruity with the intended legislative purpose necessitated the emergence of AB 600.

AB 600: Liberating Judges’ Discretion

The pivotal feature of AB 600 lies in its elimination of the requirement for district attorney or Attorney General concurrence with the resentencing court’s decision. Post AB 600, inmates seeking resentencing hearings are no longer beholden to the discretion of these entities and can directly present their petitions to the court.

In the drafting of AB 600, the California Legislature explicitly stated its intent for courts to have complete discretion in resentencing proceedings, especially concerning prior strike decisions. The Legislature emphasized that factors considered in People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) should not be exhaustive, urging courts to consider various aspects, including Penal Code Section 1385 and post-conviction factors.

Criteria for a Resentencing Hearing Under AB 600

AB 600 mandates judges to consider “post-conviction factors” when reviewing resentencing petitions. These factors include an inmate’s disciplinary record, record of rehabilitation, reduced risk of future violence, and evidence suggesting that the defendant’s continued incarceration is no longer in the interest of justice.

Examples illustrating a defendant’s potential eligibility for resentencing under AB 600 encompass changes in the law favoring the inmate, constitutional rights violations during trial, evidence undermining conviction or sentence integrity, and experiences of psychological, physical, or childhood trauma.

Maximizing AB 600’s Impact: The Role of Legal Representation

With AB 600 poised to usher in a surge of resentencing petitions, ensuring the exceptional quality of petitions through proper procedural channels becomes imperative. Los Angeles Criminal Appeals Lawyers at Power Trial Lawyers, P.C. and Orange County Sentencing Lawyers at Power Trial Lawyers, P.C. boast a track record of successfully seeking resentencing hearings for clients. While AB 600 establishes a mechanism for resentencing, its utilization may not be a routine occurrence initiated by judges. Its efficacy becomes pronounced in situations where judges may have previously expressed an inclination toward imposing a more lenient sentence but found themselves bound by the legal constraints in place at the time. Moreover, a sufficient overview of an inmate’s central file may be relevant for a judicial officer to exercise their discretion under AB 600.

For those seeking insights into the ramifications of AB 600 and its potential impact on prior sentences, Power Trial Lawyers stands ready to provide assistance. Our focus in criminal appeals and writs of habeas corpus positions us as uniquely suited lawyer  in the intricacies of post-conviction proceedings. If you or someone you know is inquisitive about the implications of AB 600, our dedicated team is at your service.

To delve deeper into AB 600 and assess its potential impact on your sentence, reach out to Power Trial Lawyers, P.C. at (888) 808-2179. Alternatively, connect with us through our secure online contact form to schedule a free consultation with our experienced legal team. At Power Trial Lawyers, we stand ready to navigate the complexities of AB 600 for the benefit of our clients.

Background Regarding SB 1437

In 2019, SB 1437 was enacted, amending Penal Code § 188 and § 189 and creating Penal Code § 1170.95. Pursuant to SB 1437, accomplice liability for felony murder and murder by way of the natural and probable consequence doctrine was substantially changed, allowing individuals convicted to seek to vacate their murder convictions and obtain resentencing relief. Resentencing is available for individuals convicted of murder, attempted murder, and/or manslaughter if they demonstrate:

1. The defendant was not a substantial actor in leading to homicide; and
2. The defendant did not “act with reckless indifferent to human life.”

To determine whether an accused was a substantial actor or whether they acted with reckless indifferent to human life, courts look to the non-exhaustive factors set out in People v. Banks (2015) 61 Cal.4th 788 (Banks) and People v. Clark (2016) 63 Cal.4th 522 (Clark). These two cases list several factors (i.e., use of or knowledge of weapons, physical presence at the scene of the crime, opportunity to restraining codefendants or aid victims, knowledge of the threats that codefendants may possess, etc.) that courts use to determine whether someone meets the SB 1437 standard. As such, SB 1437 created a mechanism and a procedure for those convicted under the former law to retroactively see relief from the law, as highlighted in Pen. Code, § 1172.6; People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952.

Special Circumstance Murder & The People v. Strong Case

Once SB 1437, individuals started to petition the court, seeking relief. However, quickly, those convicted of “special circumstance” felony murder quickly saw some of their petitions denied or stayed due to the special circumstance addition.

Christopher Strong filed, alleging all the requirements for relief pursuant to SB 1437. However, the District Attorney’s office opposed Strong, citing that strong could not bring a petition for relief because his 2014 conviction for special circumstance felony murder established that he was either an actual killer, had directly aided and abetted murder with the intent to kill, or was a major participant in the underlying felony who acted with reckless indifference to human life. The trial court agreed and denied Strong’s SB 1437 Petition.

Once Strong appealed the case, the Appellate Court ruled against him also. However, they did note that there was a sharp split among courts whether special circumstance murder precludes SB 1437 relief. The Appellate court ultimately sided against Strong.

The Supreme Court of California weighed in on the issue, ruling in favor of Strong, ruling that “findings issued by a jury before Banks and Clark do not preclude a defendant from making out a prima facie case for relief under Senate Bill 1437. This is true even if the trial evidence would have been sufficient to support the findings under Banks and Clark.”

In other words, the Supreme Court is drawing a distinction among special circumstance felony murder cases. If the defendant was convicted before Banks and Clark, there is no automatic bar precluding defendants from seeking SB 1437 relief to vacate their conviction and get resentenced.

How an SB 1437 Lawyer Can Help

Consult with an appellate and post-conviction firm in California by submitting a contact form or by direct call to our firm at (888) 808-2179.

Senate Bill 180

Effective: January 1, 2018.

Notable Changes: Previously, if you were convicted of a drug trafficking offense, the judge could impose consecutive three-year enhancements for each prior drug trafficking offense. Under SB 180, only those prior offenses for using a minor to sell or possess certain types of drugs will be used to add these three-year enhancements.

Senate Bill 620

Effective: January 1, 2018

Notable Changes: Previously, if you were convicted of a crime and the prosecution proved that you used a gun, there were mandatory sentencing enhancements under Penal Code §§ 12022.5 and 12022.53. These were some of the most severe enhancements, ranging up to 25 years in some cases. SB 620 enables sentencing judges to use their discretion to strike enhancements under §§ 12022.5 and 12022.53 when doing so is in the “interest of justice.”

 Senate Bill 1393

Effective: January 1, 2019

Notable Changes: SB 1393 gives a sentencing judge the discretion to strike five-year enhancements for prior felony convictions under Penal Code § 667(1). Previously, these enhancements were mandatory.

Senate Bill 136

Effective: January 1, 2020

Notable Changes: Penal Code § 667.5(b) previously allowed a sentencing judge to add a one-year enhancement if you had previously been convicted of a crime resulting in a prison sentence. SB 136 eliminates all one-year prior prison term enhancements except for those convicted of sexually violent offenses as described in Welfare and Institutions Code § 6600(b).

Who Can Benefit from the New California Sentencing Enhancement Laws?

Each of the new laws only applies to those cases that were not final at the time the law went into effect. Determining when a conviction is “final,” however, is not always straightforward. However, as a general rule, if your case is still pending on appeal, or you are within the window of time where you can still file an appeal, a conviction is not yet final.

How to Benefit From the Recent Changes

The manner in which you can pursue relief under the new sentencing enhancement laws depends on where your case is in the process. If you have not yet filed an appeal, you can raise these issues on direct appeal in the California Court of Appeals.

Options for Those with “Final” Convictions

While none of these laws technically apply to anyone whose case was final at the time the law went into effect, there may still be remedies available. Penal Code § 1170(d)(1) allows you to petition the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) or the district attorney’s office to recommend to the court that your sentence be reduced. While neither the CDCR nor the district attorneys’ offices are required to make such a recommendation, they have indicated a willingness to do so when a change in the law would have resulted in a shorter sentence.

Contact a California Criminal Appeals Lawyer

You can contact a criminal appeals firm at (888) 808-2179. You can also contact us through our online form.

Power Trial Lawyers, P.C. receives the Commutation Recommendation from Governor Gavin Newsom’s office. The Power Trial Lawyers, P.C. client may soon be walking free. Historically, Governors will wait and issue a number of Commutations and other Pardons at the end of their term. However, Governor Newsom has elected to issue commutations more periodically. And in making these issuance, he has recieved and reviewed the Commutation Application of a deserving Power Trial Lawyers Client and has recommended his sentence to be commuted.

Traditionally, the Governor’s office has free reign and control to commute sentences in any way they deem fit. One thing the Governor’s office can do is recommend a sentence for commutation by sending the case, alongside the commutation recommendation, to the office of the Parole Board, who will put together a review and hold a hearing. Once that’s completed successfully, it will be sent back to the Governor’s office for final commutation. This particular Power Trial Lawyers client may soon be walking free after nearly 30 years of incarceration.

An Application for Commutation of Sentence invokes and calls upon the governor’s clemency power. The Governor can commute any state sentence, stemming from a state conviction. Under the California Constitution, the Governor may commute the sentence of any conviction, even special circumstances convictions. This makes the Commutation Application one of the most pervasive post-conviction remedies.

How Power Trial Lawyers, P.C. Can Help in Your Application for Commutation of Sentence

At Power Trial Lawyers, P.C., we represent clients in preparing and finalizing their commutation applications. You can find more information on Applications for Commutations of Sentence here. If you or a loved one are thinking of filing an Application for Commutation of Sentence, contact us at Power Trial Lawyers, P.C. by submitting a Contact Submission or by call at (888) 808-2179 to consult with a Power Trial Lawyers, P.C. attorney.

Application for Commutation of Sentence | California Criminal Appeals Attorney | Post-Conviction Los Angeles Lawyer

Historically, juveniles were frequently charged as adults. It wasn’t until relatively recently that the juvenile justice system came into existence. The juvenile justice system has a primary focus on rehabilitation. Minors can also “age out” of the juvenile justice system, limiting the length of time they are subject to incarceration or supervision. Thus, whenever possible, juveniles benefit from staying in the juvenile justice system.

For the most part, juveniles who are charged as adults face the same punishments that adults do. There are two important exceptions: the death penalty and life in prison without the possibility of parole (JLWOP). In recent years, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that juveniles cannot be sentenced to death. Subsequently, the Court determined that, while juveniles can be sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole, a trial court must follow strict procedures that allow proper consideration of the defendant’s age.

In the Court’s most recent opinion involving JLWOP, the Court was tasked with determining whether Mississippi’s JLWOP statute was constitutionally sufficient given recent legal developments.

In that case, the defendant was charged with the murder of his grandfather. At the time of the offense, the defendant was 15 years old. A jury convicted the defendant, and a judge sentenced him to LWOP. After the Court’s decision in Miller v. Alabama, the Mississippi Supreme Court ordered the defendant was eligible for a resentencing.

At the defendant’s resentencing, the judge again sentenced him to LWOP, finding that it remained the appropriate sentence. The defendant filed a post-conviction petition, claiming that the resentencing judge failed to consider whether he was “permanently incorrigible.” The defendant maintained that this was a necessary finding to resentence a juvenile to LWOP.

The Supreme Court rejected the defendant’s argument. The Court explained that the resentencing court need only consider “an offender’s youth and attendant characteristics” before resentencing. The Court held that there was no requirement that a court finds the defendant to be permanently incorrigible and that as long as a state’s sentencing structure provided for the consideration of the defendant’s youth and the impact it had on the commission of the offense, it was constitutionally sound.