In re Williams

• Decision Date: 16 November 2020
• Docket Number: B303744
• Citation: 271 Cal.Rptr.3d 453,57 Cal.App.5th 427
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: IN RE Michael WILLIAMS, on Habeas Corpus.

57 Cal.App.5th 427

271 Cal.Rptr.3d 453

IN RE Michael WILLIAMS, on Habeas Corpus.

B303744

Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 5, California.

Filed November 16, 2020

I.

INTRODUCTION

Petitioner Michael Williams was 21 years old when he shot and killed two men during a robbery. A jury convicted him of two counts of first degree murder ( Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a) )¹ and found true the allegation that he personally used a firearm in the commission of the robbery (§ 12022.5, subd. (a)). It also found true the special circumstance allegations that he committed multiple murders (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(3)) and murder during the commission of robbery (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(17)). A court sentenced him to two consecutive terms of life without the possibility of parole (LWOP). We affirmed the conviction and sentence on direct appeal. (People v. Williams (Aug. 21, 1995, B083327) [nonpub. opn.].)

Petitioner, self-represented at the time, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus on January 21, 2020. He asserted that the denial of a youth offender parole hearing under section 3051 violates his right to equal protection of the laws and constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. Under section 3051, subdivision (b), most inmates under age 26 at the time of their "controlling offense" become eligible for a youth offender parole hearing in their 15th, 20th, or 25th year of incarceration.² The different statutory parole hearing dates depend on the offense. (§ 3051, subd. (b).) Section 3051, subdivision (h) is the exception to the rule. It excludes from youth offender parole hearings offenders, like petitioner, who are serving LWOP sentences for offenses committed "after the person had attained 18 years of age." (Ibid. )

We appointed counsel for petitioner and issued an order to show cause. We now deny the petition.

II.

DISCUSSION

A. Youth Offender Parole Hearings

Youth offender parole hearings under section 3051 were established by the Legislature in 2013, following a series of United States and California Supreme Court cases addressing the constitutionality of lengthy prison sentences for juvenile offenders. In Graham v. Florida (2010) 560 U.S. 48, 130 S.Ct. 2011, 176 L.Ed.2d 825 ( Graham ), the United States Supreme Court had held the Eighth Amendment prohibits states from imposing an LWOP sentence on a juvenile convicted of a nonhomicide offense. ( Graham, at pp. 74-75, 130 S.Ct. 2011.) Two years later, in Miller v. Alabama (2012) 567 U.S. 460, 132 S.Ct. 2455, 183 L.Ed.2d 407 ( Miller ), the Supreme Court held the Eighth Amendment prohibits mandatory LWOP sentences for juveniles, regardless of the crime, including murder. ( Miller, at p. 479, 132 S.Ct. 2455.)

The holdings in the two cases were founded on the diminished culpability of juveniles and their greater prospects for reform. Both cases relied on earlier similar findings in Roper v. Simmons (2005) 543 U.S. 551, 125 S.Ct. 1183, 161 L.Ed.2d 1 ( Roper ), which declared the death penalty for juveniles unconstitutional. Citing brain science and psychological studies, Graham and Miller , like Roper , were predicated on the accepted differences between adult and juvenile offenders. Children have a " ‘ "lack of maturity and an underdeveloped sense of responsibility," ’ leading to recklessness, impulsivity, and heedless risk-taking." ( Miller , supra , 567 U.S. at p. 471, 132 S.Ct. 2455.) They " ‘are more vulnerable ... to negative influences and outside pressures,’ " have limited " ‘contro[l] over their own environment,’ " and "lack the ability to extricate themselves from horrific, crime-producing settings." ( Ibid . ) And because "a child's character is not as ‘well formed’ as an adult's[,] his traits are ‘less fixed’ and his actions less likely to be ‘evidence of irretrievabl[e] deprav[ity].’ " ( Ibid ., first brackets added.) These characteristics mean a juvenile offender is both less culpable and more likely to rehabilitate than an adult offender. For that reason, states are required to provide juvenile offenders with a "meaningful opportunity to obtain release based on demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation." ( Graham , supra, 560 U.S. at p. 75, 130 S.Ct. 2011.)

In People v. Caballero (2012) 55 Cal.4th 262, 145 Cal.Rptr.3d 286, 282 P.3d 291 ( Caballero ), the California Supreme Court extended Graham and Miller ’s reasoning to a juvenile sentenced to 110 years to life in prison for nonhomicide crimes. Although Caballero did not receive a literal LWOP sentence, he would not have been eligible for parole for over 100 years, effectively giving him no "meaningful opportunity" to " ‘demonstrate growth and maturity’ " and thereby secure release during his natural lifespan. ( Caballero, at p. 268, 145 Cal.Rptr.3d 286, 282 P.3d 291.) The Caballero court held the 110-years-to-life sentence unconstitutional and urged the Legislature "to enact legislation establishing a parole eligibility mechanism that provides a defendant serving a de facto life sentence without possibility of parole for nonhomicide crimes that he or she committed as a juvenile with the opportunity to obtain release on a showing of rehabilitation and maturity." ( Id . at p. 269, fn. 5, 145 Cal.Rptr.3d 286, 282 P.3d 291.)

The following year, the Legislature enacted section 3051 to address "the situation, the subject of People v. Caballero , in which a youth is sentenced to life-with-the-possibility of parole, which may serve as a de facto life sentence." (Assem. Com. on Appropriations, Analysis of Sen. Bill No. 260 (2013-2014 Reg. Sess.) as amended Aug. 12, 2013, p. 2.) Juveniles sentenced to LWOP, however, were not included in the bill's provisions because the Legislature believed the law already provided a remedy for those offenders: Under section 1170, subdivision (d)(2), inmates who were under age 18 at the time of their crimes and sentenced to LWOP could petition the court for resentencing after 15 years. (Assem. Com. on Appropriations, Analysis of Sen. Bill No. 260 (2013-2014 Reg. Sess.) as amended Aug. 12, 2013; see also § 1170, subd. (d)(2).)³

Effective January 1, 2016, section 3051's provisions were extended to offenders who were under age 24 at the time of their offenses. (Stats. 2015, ch. 471, § 1 (Sen. Bill No. 261).) Two years later, they were further extended to include offenders who were under age 26 when they committed their crimes. (Stats. 2017, ch. 675, § 1 (Assem. Bill No. 1308);see also § 3051, subd. (a)(1).) In doing so, the Legislature cited "[r]ecent neurological research show[ing] that cognitive brain development continues well beyond age 18 and into early adulthood." (Assem. Com. on Appropriations, Analysis of Sen. Bill No. 261 (2015-2016 Reg. Sess.)as amended July 1, 2015, p. 1; see also Assem. Com. on Public Safety, Analysis of Assem. Bill No. 1308 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.) as amended Mar. 30, 2017.)

In 2016, the United States Supreme Court held in Montgomery v. Louisiana (2016) 577 U.S. ––––, 136 S.Ct. 718, 193 L.Ed.2d 599 ( Montgomery ) that Miller ’s prohibition against mandatory LWOP sentences for juvenile offenders is retroactive. Concerned that its retroactive application of Miller would result in mandatory resentencing of large numbers of inmates, the Montgomery court advised of an alternative. "Giving Miller retroactive effect, moreover, does not require States to relitigate sentences, let alone convictions, in every case where a juvenile offender received mandatory life without parole. A State may remedy a Miller violation by permitting juvenile homicide offenders to be considered for parole, rather than by resentencing them." ( Montgomery, at p. 736.)

Shortly after the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Montgomery , the Court of Appeal in In re Berg (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 418, 438-439, 202 Cal.Rptr.3d 786 ( Berg ) held the resentencing procedure in section 1170, subdivision (d)(2) failed to provide an adequate remedy for juvenile offenders serving LWOP sentences. For some, the statute did not comport with Miller, for others the statute did not apply at all. ( Berg, at pp. 438-439, 202 Cal.Rptr.3d 786.)⁴

It was in response to Montgomery and Berg that the Legislature once again amended section 3051 to extend youth offender parole hearings, for the first time, to inmates sentenced to LWOP for crimes committed before age 18. (Sen. Com. on Public Safety, Analysis of Sen. Bill No. 394 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.) Feb. 15, 2017.) The senate bill analysis states that the legislation "clarifies that it does not apply to those with a life without parole sentence who were older than 18 at the time of his or her controlling offense." (Id. at p. 2.) The amendment thus did not provide any relief to petitioner who had committed an LWOP offense after he had attained 18 years of age.

B. Equal Protection

Petitioner's first contention is that his sentence violates the constitutional right to equal protection of the laws. We begin our analysis accordingly. "The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and article I, section 7 of the California Constitution guarantee all persons the equal protection of the laws. To succeed on an equal protection claim, [petitioner] must first show that the state has adopted a classification that affects two or more similarly situated groups in an unequal manner. [Citation.] ... [¶] Where a class of criminal defendants is similarly situated to another class of defendants who are sentenced differently, courts look to determine whether there is a rational basis for the difference. [Citation.]" ( People v. Edwards (2019) 34 Cal.App.5th 183, 195, 246 Cal.Rptr.3d 40 ( Edwards ).) "[E]qual protection of the law is denied only where there is no ‘rational relationship between the disparity of treatment and some legitimate governmental purpose.’ [Citation.] ... This standard of rationality does not depend upon whether lawmakers ever actually articulated the purpose they sought to achieve. Nor must the underlying rationale be empirically substantiated. [Citation.] While the...