Estrada-Huerta v. People, Supreme Court Case No. 14SC127
| Docket Nº | Supreme Court Case No. 14SC127 |
| Citation | 394 P.3d 1139 |
| Case Date | May 22, 2017 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Colorado |
394 P.3d 1139
Alejandro ESTRADA-HUERTA, Petitioner,
v.
The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Respondent.
Supreme Court Case No. 14SC127
Supreme Court of Colorado.
May 22, 2017
Attorneys for Petitioner: The Noble Law Firm, LLC, Antony Noble, Tara Jorfald, Lakewood, Colorado
Attorneys for Respondent: Cynthia H. Coffman, Attorney General, Joseph G. Michaels, Assistant Attorney General, Denver, Colorado
Attorney for Amicus Curiae Colorado Criminal Defense Bar: Philip A. Cherner, Denver, Colorado
Attorneys for Amici Curiae Juvenile Law Center, Colorado Juvenile Defender Center, Center for Children's Law and Policy, Coalition for Juvenile Justice, National Center for Youth Law, and Youth Law Center: Juvenile Law Center, Marsha Levick, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Colorado Juvenile Defender Center, Kim Dvorchak, Denver, Colorado
En Banc
JUSTICE EID delivered the Opinion of the Court.
¶1 In 2006, a jury convicted Alejandro Estrada-Huerta of second-degree kidnapping and sexual assault. Estrada-Huerta was seventeen at the time he was charged with the offenses, and he was tried as an adult. The trial court sentenced Estrada-Huerta to twenty-four years for the kidnapping conviction and sixteen years to life for each count of sexual assault. The sexual assault sentences were ordered to run concurrently with each other but consecutive to the kidnapping sentence, resulting in an aggregate sentence of forty years to life in the custody of the Department of Corrections.
¶2 Following the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Graham v. Florida , 560 U.S. 48, 130 S.Ct. 2011, 176 L.Ed.2d 825 (2010), which categorically banned sentences of life without parole for juveniles who were not convicted of homicide, Estrada-Huerta filed a motion with the district court arguing that his aggregate term-of-years sentence is the functional equivalent of life without parole and is therefore unconstitutional under Graham . The district court denied Estrada-Huerta's motion. On appeal, the court of appeals affirmed, concluding that, because Estrada-Huerta will be eligible for parole at age fifty-eight, he has a meaningful opportunity to obtain release, and his sentence thereby complies with Graham and the subsequent case of Miller v. Alabama , 567 U.S. 460, 132 S.Ct. 2455, 183 L.Ed.2d 407 (2012). People v. Estrada-Huerta (Estrada-Huerta II ), No. 11CA1932, slip op. at 8, 2013 WL 6512698 (Colo. App. Dec. 12, 2013).
¶3 We granted certiorari and now affirm the court of appeals, albeit on different grounds. For reasons discussed at length in our lead companion case, Lucero v. People , 2017 CO 49, 394 P.3d 1128, also announced today,1 we hold that Graham and Miller do not apply to, and therefore do not invalidate, Estrada-Huerta's aggregate term-of-years sentence.
I.
¶4 In 2004, when he was seventeen, Estrada-Huerta and several companions forced a fifteen-year-old into a truck, drove elsewhere, and sexually assaulted her. They then forced the victim into another vehicle, where she was sexually assaulted again. Estrada-Huerta was charged with two counts of second-degree kidnapping, three counts of sexual assault, unlawful sexual contact, and false imprisonment, and he was prosecuted as an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People ex rel. T.B., Court of Appeals No. 16CA1289
...addressed juvenile sentencing in other contexts and adopted these federal standards. See, e.g. , Estrada-Huerta v. People , 2017 CO 52, 394 P.3d 1139 ; Lucero v. People , 2017 CO 49, 394 P.3d 1128 ; People v. Tate , 2015 CO 42, 352 P.3d 959.¶29 Third, the Eighth Amendment jurisprudence on l......
-
People v. Godinez, Court of Appeals No. 14CA0505
...holding to affirm a juvenile-defendant’s aggregate sentences in a sexual assault case. See Estrada-Huerta v. People , 2017 CO 52, ¶ 8, 394 P.3d 1139.B. Application ¶ 96 Godinez was convicted of multiple offenses for which he was sentenced to imprisonment for thirty-two years to life. The pa......
-
Lucero v. People, Supreme Court Case No. 13SC624
..., 2013 COA 53, ¶ 12, ––– P.3d ––––, and the record supports, Lucero will be eligible for parole at the age of fifty-seven, which is 394 P.3d 1139within his natural life expectancy. Accordingly, under Graham , 560 U.S. at 75, 130 S.Ct. 2011, the State has given Lucero "some meaningful opport......
-
Armstrong v. People, Supreme Court Case No. 13SC945
...issue presented.--------Notes:1 We also decide People v. Rainer , 2017 CO 50, 394 P.3d 1141, and Estrada-Huerta v. People , 2017 CO 52, 394 P.3d 1139.2 Rule 35(c) of the Colorado Rules of Criminal Procedure allows a defendant to challenge a conviction or sentence on constitutional grounds. ......
-
People ex rel. T.B., Court of Appeals No. 16CA1289
...addressed juvenile sentencing in other contexts and adopted these federal standards. See, e.g. , Estrada-Huerta v. People , 2017 CO 52, 394 P.3d 1139 ; Lucero v. People , 2017 CO 49, 394 P.3d 1128 ; People v. Tate , 2015 CO 42, 352 P.3d 959.¶29 Third, the Eighth Amendment jurisprudence on l......
-
People v. Godinez, Court of Appeals No. 14CA0505
...holding to affirm a juvenile-defendant’s aggregate sentences in a sexual assault case. See Estrada-Huerta v. People , 2017 CO 52, ¶ 8, 394 P.3d 1139.B. Application ¶ 96 Godinez was convicted of multiple offenses for which he was sentenced to imprisonment for thirty-two years to life. The pa......
-
Lucero v. People, Supreme Court Case No. 13SC624
..., 2013 COA 53, ¶ 12, ––– P.3d ––––, and the record supports, Lucero will be eligible for parole at the age of fifty-seven, which is 394 P.3d 1139within his natural life expectancy. Accordingly, under Graham , 560 U.S. at 75, 130 S.Ct. 2011, the State has given Lucero "some meaningful opport......
-
Armstrong v. People, Supreme Court Case No. 13SC945
...issue presented.--------Notes:1 We also decide People v. Rainer , 2017 CO 50, 394 P.3d 1141, and Estrada-Huerta v. People , 2017 CO 52, 394 P.3d 1139.2 Rule 35(c) of the Colorado Rules of Criminal Procedure allows a defendant to challenge a conviction or sentence on constitutional grounds. ......