Appellate panels reverse life terms as case law evolves

An evolution of case law led to the vacating of two life sentences, according to opinions filed by two appellate panels Thursday. The cases have been remanded to the superior courts, one for resentencing and one for a new trial.

The 4th District Court of Appeal vacated the special circumstances of a man serving a life sentence under the felony murder rule. In re Stephen Bennett, 2018 DJDAR 8994 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. Sept. 5, 2018).

The 3rd District Court of Appeal took one step further in a case concerning a man serving 55 years to life for a second-degree murder committed when he was a juvenile. The court vacated the sentence and remanded the case to juvenile court, deciding the defendant should not have been tried as an adult. People v. Carter, 2018 DJDAR 8954 (Cal. App. 3rd Dist. Sept. 5, 2018).

In reversing the ruling by Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Timothy M. Frawley, who presided over the second-degree murder case of Richard Carter, 3rd District Presiding Justice Harry E. Hull Jr. wrote, "Punishment for crime should be graduated and proportioned to both the offender and the offense."

In both cases, the courts found life to be an inappropriate punishment.

Carter, who was 17 when he was tried in 2011, was found guilty of killing the driver of a car when he shot at the car. Carter received a three strikes enhancement to his sentence, having been previously convicted of second-degree robbery. At his sentencing, the trial judge looked at Carter's record and, according to court documents said, "There is nothing that gives me much hope about Mr. Carter. If there was just something in his background, a glimmer that suggested to me he wanted to change."

But the appellate panel, which consisted of Hull, Justices M. Kathleen Butz and William J. Murray Jr., said state Supreme Court decisions like People v. Gutierrez, 58 Cal. 4th 1354 (2014) and the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012) meant the trial court should have taken into account certain factors that make juvenile defendants unique from other people who commit crimes.

"A presumption in favor of three strikes sentencing creates problems of constitutionality as applied to juvenile offenders," Hull wrote of the trial judge's errors in the Carter case.

Hull also acknowledged the state courts continue to examine the severity of sentencing someone to life without parole, noting the state Supreme Court is considering whether there must be a record showing "express determination of irreparable corruption" before such a sentence is imposed on juveniles or whether a trial court just needs to give due consideration to the defendant's age. But the panel found that even assuming the trial court did not have to find irreparable corruption, the judge still erred in not giving weight to the defendant's lack of maturity.

"It appears the trial court considered significant defendant's current unwillingness to change at the time of sentencing," Hull wrote, "but without considering whether defendant's current unwillingness to change might be the product of transient immaturity, as opposed to permanent incorrigibility arising from irreparable corruption."

Carter's attorney, David Y. Stanley, could not be reached for comment.

Former federal public defender Elizabeth H. Richardson-Royer said she takes issue with sentencing people to life without parole. Richardson-Royer said she first represented Stephen Bennett, the appellant in the 4th District Court of Appeal decision filed Thursday, when he brought a writ of habeas corpus to the 9th Circuit appealing his sentence. When he was denied, Richardson-Royer said she kept him on pro bono because of his willingness to change.

"Of all my clients, he's really very deserving of this chance," she said. "I believe people can and do change."

Bennett, who was serving a life sentence under the felony murder rule which holds accomplices to the same standard as the person who committed the murder, challenged the sufficiency of evidence that showed he was a significant participant in the murder and that he showed an indifference to human life. These are fairly recent standards of sufficiency, established in state Supreme Court decisions like People v. Banks, 61 Cal. 4th 788 (2015), and People v. Clark, 63 Cal. 4th 522 (2016). Ultimately, the 4th District Court of Appeal, Division Three justices relied on Banks and Clark in granting Bennett's petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Bennett will now be resentenced by the trial court.

At the same time the courts are establishing a record of case law redefining life sentences, the state Legislature is taking up the issue as well. Senate Bill 1437, which passed the Legislature in August and headed to the governor's desk, seeks to end the felony murder rule altogether. Richardson-Royer said Bennett would now be eligible for parole under SB 1437 should the governor sign it into law.

The state attorney general's office did not respond to a request for comment.