In re Shaheed CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D065031 · 2014-07-23 · Unpublished

Proceeding: original
Outcome: vacated — The conviction is vacated.
Area: criminal
Panel: Alex C. McDonald (author), Gilbert Nares, Cynthia Aaron

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T06:36Z · confidence high

The trial court sentenced the petitioner to life without the possibility of parole based on a statutory presumption that was later found unconstitutional. The Court of Appeal granted habeas relief and remanded the case for resentencing after the Attorney General conceded that the Supreme Court's decision in People v. Gutierrez required vacating the sentence.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Sentence of life without the possibility of parole imposed under Penal Code section 190.5, subdivision (b). “The court sentenced Shaheed to life without the possibility of parole pursuant to Penal Code section 190.5, subdivision (b).”	unclear	error	agree with court The appellate court held that the trial court's application of the presumption in favor of LWOP violated the Eighth Amendment as interpreted by Miller v. Alabama and People v. Gutierrez, requiring resentencing.

Authorities

relied: Miller v. Alabama (2012) 132 S.Ct. 2455 — Held that a state statute imposing a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment without parole for those under the age of 18 that commit murder violates the Eighth Amendment.
relied: People v. Gutierrez (2014) 58 Cal.4th 1354 — Held that Miller precludes an interpretation of 190.5 as creating a presumption of life without parole and that previous sentencing determinations premised on that presumption require resentencing.
relied: People v. Romero (1994) 8 Cal.4th 728 — Established that a court may grant relief without issuing an order to show cause or writ of habeas corpus when the petitioner's custodian concedes the requested relief must be granted.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is procedurally sound because it correctly applies the binding precedent of People v. Gutierrez to the specific facts of the case. It also correctly cites People v. Romero to justify granting relief based on the Attorney General's concession without a full plenary proceeding.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

unusual disposition

A model's reading — claude-fable-5-1, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:31Z · confidence low

In 1998 the trial court sentenced 16-year-old Haneef Shaheed to life without the possibility of parole under Penal Code section 190.5, subdivision (b), applying then-governing authority that treated the statute as creating a presumption in favor of that sentence. On habeas corpus, after staying the matter for People v. Gutierrez and receiving the Attorney General's concession, the Court of Appeal granted relief without an order to show cause, stated that the 'conviction' was vacated, and remanded for resentencing consistent with Miller v. Alabama and Gutierrez.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Sentence of life without parole imposed under Penal Code section 190.5, subdivision (b), applying a presumption in favor of LWOP for a 16-year-old offender “When Shaheed was sentenced in 1998, the trial court applied governing authority to construe Penal Code section 190.5 as establishing a presumption in favor of a sentence of life without parole and found no basis for reducing the sentence.”	de novo	error (statutory interpretation)	agree with court Gutierrez held that Miller forbids reading section 190.5(b) as presumptively favoring LWOP and that sentences imposed under that presumption require resentencing with full consideration of youth-related mitigating factors. The trial court here expressly applied the presumption, so the sentence falls within Gutierrez's holding, and the Attorney General conceded the point. The court did not discuss retroactivity of Miller on collateral review (Gutierrez arose on direct appeal), but the concession made that unnecessary and the result is consistent with the governing authorities.

Authorities

relied: Miller v. Alabama (2012) 132 S.Ct. 2455 — Mandatory life without parole for offenders under 18 violates the Eighth Amendment; a sentencer must consider the distinctive attributes of youth before imposing LWOP on a juvenile.
relied: People v. Gutierrez (2014) 58 Cal.4th 1354 — Miller precludes construing Penal Code section 190.5(b) as creating a presumption in favor of LWOP for 16- and 17-year-olds; sentences imposed under that presumption must be vacated and the defendant resentenced.
relied: People v. Romero (1994) 8 Cal.4th 728 — A reviewing court may grant habeas relief without issuing an order to show cause when the custodian concedes the petitioner is entitled to the relief sought.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The court correctly applied Miller and Gutierrez to a sentence imposed under the now-rejected LWOP presumption, and properly relied on Romero to grant relief on the Attorney General's concession without an order to show cause. However, the disposition states that 'the conviction is vacated' when the petition challenged only the sentence and the remedy ordered is resentencing, and the opinion does not address why Miller/Gutierrez applies on collateral review to a 1998 final judgment.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

unusual disposition

Opinion

Filed 7/23/14 In re Shaheed CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

In re HANEEF SHAHEED D065031 on (San Diego County Super. Ct. No. SCD130379) Habeas Corpus.

Petition for writ of habeas corpus. Relief granted.

C. Anthony Valladolid, for Petitioner.

Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Sabrina Y. Lane-Erwin, Deputy Attorney General, for Respondent.

In 1998, a jury convicted petitioner Haneef Shaheed of first-degree murder, kidnapping during a carjacking, and kidnapping for robbery. The jury also found true the special circumstances that the murder was intentional and committed for financial gain, committed by lying in wait, committed during a robbery, and committed during a kidnapping. The court sentenced Shaheed to life without the possibility of parole pursuant to Penal Code section 190.5, subdivision (b). Shaheed was 16 years old at the time he committed the crimes.

In his petition for writ of habeas corpus, Shaheed contends that Penal Code section 190.5 violates the Constitution's Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. Shaheed's petition is premised on a recent Supreme Court decision, Miller v. Alabama (2012) __ U.S. __, 132 S.Ct. 2455 (Miller), which held that a state statute imposing a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment without parole for those under the age of 18 that commit murder violates the Eighth Amendment and that sentence may be imposed only after the court considers the "distinctive attributes of youth" and how those attributes "diminish the penological justifications for imposing the harshest sentences on juvenile offenders." (Id. at p. 2465.)

At the time Shaheed filed his writ petition, the California Supreme Court was reviewing the same question raised by Shaheed: whether existing authority interpreting section 190.5, subdivision (b) as creating a presumption in favor of a sentence of life without parole violates the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution under the principles announced in Miller. (People v. Gutierrez (2014) 58 Cal.4th 1354 (Gutierrez).)

We stayed further proceedings involving Shaheed's petition pending the final outcome of Gutierrez. In its decision, the Supreme Court held that Miller precludes an interpretation of 190.5 as creating a presumption of life without parole and that previous sentencing determinations premised on that presumption require resentencing. (People v. Gutierrez, supra, 58 Cal.4th at p. 1390-1391.)

2 After the Supreme Court filed its decision, we requested an informal response from the Attorney General regarding the effect of Gutierrez on Shaheed's petition. In response, the Attorney General concedes that relief should be granted and the case remanded for resentencing.

The Attorney General recognizes relief is warranted. When Shaheed was sentenced in 1998, the trial court applied governing authority to construe Penal Code section 190.5 as establishing a presumption in favor of a sentence of life without parole and found no basis for reducing the sentence. !(Exh. M, p. 367.)! As discussed in Gutierrez, although we do not fault the trial court for dutifully applying the law as it stood at the time, that presumption raises serious constitutional concerns that require a remand for resentencing.

We may grant relief without issuing an order to show cause or writ of habeas corpus when the petitioner's custodian concedes the requested relief must be granted.

(People v. Romero (1994) 8 Cal.4th 728, 740, fn. 7.) Because of the Attorney General's concession, we conclude no useful purpose would reasonably be served by issuance of 3 an order to show cause and/or plenary disposition of the matter. The conviction is vacated. The matter is remanded to superior court for resentencing consistent with Miller and Gutierrez.

McDONALD, J.

WE CONCUR:

NARES, Acting P. J.

AARON, J.

Cites, in this corpus

People v. Gutierrez S206365; S206771 · 2014-05-05
People v. Romero S030160 · 1994-11-10