Cal. Law Giving Parole to LWOP-Sentenced Juveniles Struck Down

A California Superior Court judge ruled Friday that a statute passed by the Legislature to give parole eligibility to murderers sentenced to life without parole for murders committed before their eighteenth birthdays is unconstitutional. The law providing for juvenile life-without-parole (JLWOP) sentences was enacted by the people by initiative, and the legislative statute ran afoul of a state constitutional provision limiting the Legislature’s ability to amend initiative statutes.

Section 190.5(b) of the Penal Code was enacted by Proposition 115 of 1990. For the types of first-degree murder that would be capital crimes if committed by an adult, that law gives the trial judge discretion to choose between a sentence of life without parole or 25 years to life. In 2017, the California Legislature enacted SB 394, which added subdivision (b)(4) to Penal Code section 3051. That subdivision authorizes parole after 25 years to inmates sentenced to life without parole under section 190.5(b). The bill’s sponsor told the Legislature that this change was necessary because the U.S. Supreme Court had outlawed life without parole for juveniles in Miller v. Alabama (2012). That was a patent falsehood. Miller held no such thing. Last year in Jones v. Mississippi, the high court further clarified that for juvenile life without parole “a State’s discretionary sentencing system is both constitutionally necessary and constitutionally sufficient.”

The California Constitution provides that the Legislature cannot amend an initiative statute except as permitted by the initiative itself. Proposition 115 allows amendments with a 2/3 vote of both houses. SB 394 did not pass the Assembly by a 2/3 vote. Therefore, its effective repeal of the initiative’s authorization of life-without-parole sentences is invalid.

The case was heard by Sacramento Superior Court Judge Stacy Boulware Eurie. Under that court’s tentative ruling system, the judge issues a tentative ruling before the hearing. That ruling, issued last Thursday, is here. The final ruling was issued late Friday afternoon but only became available on the court’s public access system late Monday afternoon. It is now available here. The final ruling incorporates the tentative ruling with additional comments, so both are needed to constitute the full ruling of the court.