New legislation might clear three cases from the Supreme Court’s calendar.
In January, the Supreme Court granted review on its own motion in People v. Padilla after the Court of Appeal reversed a sentence of life without the possibility of parole for a murder committed by a 16-year-old. U.S. Supreme Court precedent precludes automatic life-without-parole sentences for juvenile crimes.
Briefing in Padilla was completed three months ago, but the Attorney General last month wrote to the court that “a recent change in the law . . . renders the question in this case moot.” According to the Legislative Counsel, the new legislation — Senate Bill 394 — “make[s] a person who was convicted of a controlling offense that was committed before the person had attained 18 years of age and for which a life sentence without the possibility of parole has been imposed eligible for release on parole by the board during his or her 25th year of incarceration at a youth offender parole hearing.”
Yesterday, the court responded by asking the parties to brief, “What bearing, if any, does SB 394 . . . have on this court’s examination of the question presented for review in the above-titled case?” The court also yesterday made the identical request in another pending case — People v. Mendoza — that involves the same issue as Padilla.
Similarly, in a third juvenile LWOP case, People v. Contreras, an un-hold case that was argued on the October calendar, the court three weeks ago vacated submission of the case and asked for supplemental briefing regarding the effect of SB 394, another new law, and several state regulations.
Last year, in People v. Franklin, the court concluded that delaying parole eligibility for 25 years is not functionally equivalent to life without parole and is thus constitutionally permissible.