In re Hansen CA4/1
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- other — Brae Hansen in pro.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- McINTYRE (author), Richard D. Huffman, Sr., Patricia D. Benke
Analysis
The trial court sentenced the petitioner to life without the possibility of parole based on a statutory presumption under Penal Code section 190.5. The Court of Appeal granted the writ of habeas corpus, vacated the sentence, and remanded for resentencing in light of the California Supreme Court's decision in People v. Gutierrez.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Sentence of life without the possibility of parole imposed under Penal Code section 190.5“When the court sentenced Hansen, it applied this presumption in favor of a sentence of life without parole and found no basis for reducing the sentence.” | unclear | error | agree with court The appellate court found the sentence unconstitutional because it was premised on a statutory presumption of life without parole, which the California Supreme Court held in People v. Gutierrez to be precluded by Miller v. Alabama. The court noted that while the trial court was not at fault for applying the law as it existed at the time, the sentence required resentencing to comply with constitutional mandates regarding juvenile offenders. |
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 who commit murder violates the Eighth Amendment.
- relied: People v. Gutierrez (2014) 58 Cal.4th 1354 — Held that Miller precludes an interpretation of section 190.5 as creating a presumption of life without parole and that previous sentencing determinations premised on such a 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 that the requested relief must be granted.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly applies the controlling state supreme court precedent (Gutierrez) to the specific facts of the case and utilizes the proper procedural mechanism (People v. Romero) to grant relief based on the Attorney General's concession. It accurately reflects the legal standard that the statutory presumption of LWOP for juveniles is unconstitutional under Miller.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionThe San Diego Superior Court sentenced Brae Hansen, who was 17 at the time of the offense, to life without the possibility of parole for first degree murder with a lying-in-wait special circumstance, applying the then-prevailing presumption under Penal Code section 190.5, subdivision (b) in favor of LWOP. On habeas corpus, the Court of Appeal, after staying the matter pending People v. Gutierrez and receiving the Attorney General's concession, granted relief and remanded for resentencing consistent with Miller v. Alabama and Gutierrez.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Imposition of a life-without-parole sentence on a juvenile offender under Penal Code section 190.5, subdivision (b), applying a presumption in favor of LWOP“When the court sentenced Hansen, it applied this presumption in favor of a sentence of life without parole and found no basis for reducing the sentence.” | unclear | error (law misapplied) | agree with court The opinion does not articulate a standard of review, but the question is purely legal and controlled by Gutierrez, which held that Miller precludes reading section 190.5(b) as creating a presumption of LWOP and that sentences imposed under that presumption require resentencing. The record as described (prosecution's sentencing memorandum invoking the presumption and the court applying it) matches the Gutierrez error, and the Attorney General conceded. The court properly treated the trial court's reliance on then-governing authority as error without fault, requiring remand so the sentencing court can exercise informed discretion considering youth-related factors. |
Authorities
- relied: Miller v. Alabama (2012) 132 S.Ct. 2455 — Mandatory life without parole for offenders under 18 violates the Eighth Amendment; such a sentence may be imposed only after the sentencer considers the distinctive attributes of youth and how they diminish the penological justifications for the harshest sentences.
- relied: People v. Gutierrez (2014) 58 Cal.4th 1354 — Miller precludes interpreting Penal Code section 190.5, subdivision (b) as creating a presumption in favor of life without parole for 16- and 17-year-old special circumstance murderers; sentences imposed under that presumption require resentencing.
- relied: People v. Romero (1994) 8 Cal.4th 728 — A court may grant habeas relief without issuing an order to show cause or the writ when the petitioner's custodian concedes that the requested relief must be granted.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The court correctly applied Gutierrez and Miller to a sentencing record that admittedly rested on the now-rejected LWOP presumption, and properly relied on Romero to grant conceded relief summarily. The one gap is the disposition's statement that 'The conviction is vacated,' which is inconsistent with the opinion's analysis and remand for resentencing only; the error identified was in the sentence, not the conviction, and the opinion does not explain or reconcile that language.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionOpinion
Filed 9/16/14 In re Hansen 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 BRAE HANSEN D063983 on (San Diego County Super. Ct. No. SCD207862) Habeas Corpus.
THE COURT:
Petition for writ of habeas corpus. Relief granted.
Brae Hansen in pro. per., for Petitioner.
Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, and Charles C. Ragland, Deputy Attorney General, for Respondent.
FACTS
In 2009, a jury convicted petitioner Brae Hansen of first degree murder and vicarious use of a firearm. The jury also found true the special circumstance that the murder was committed by lying in wait. The court sentenced Hansen to life without the possibility of parole. Hansen was 17 at the time she committed the crime. DISCUSSION In her petition for writ of habeas corpus, Hansen contends that Penal Code section 190.5 (undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code), which governs sentencing of juveniles found guilty of murder in which certain special circumstances are found true, violates the Constitution's Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. Hansen'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 who commit murder violates the Eighth Amendment and that such sentences 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 Hansen filed her writ petition, the California Supreme Court was reviewing the same question raised by Hansen: 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).)
2 We stayed further proceedings involving Hansen's petition pending the final outcome of Gutierrez. In its decision, the Supreme Court held that Miller precludes an interpretation of section 190.5 as creating a presumption of life without parole and that previous sentencing determinations premised on such a presumption require resentencing.
(Gutierrez, supra, 58 Cal.4th at pp. 1390-1391.)
After the Supreme Court filed its decision, we requested an informal response from the Attorney General regarding the effect of Gutierrez on Hansen's petition. In that response, the Attorney General concedes that relief should be granted and the case remanded for resentencing.
As the Attorney General recognizes, relief is warranted. In its sentencing memorandum, the prosecution informed the court that under governing authority, section 190.5 creates a presumption in favor of a sentence of life without the possibility of parole. When the court sentenced Hansen, it applied this presumption in favor of a sentence of life without parole and found no basis for reducing the sentence. As discussed in Gutierrez, although we do not fault the trial court for dutifully applying the law as it stood at the time, such a presumption raises serious constitutional concerns that require a remand for resentencing.
3 DISPOSITION
We may grant relief without issuing an order to show cause or writ of habeas corpus when the petitioner's custodian concedes that the requested relief must be granted.
(People v. Romero (1994) 8 Cal.4th 728, 740, fn. 7.) Given the Attorney General's concession, we conclude no useful purpose could reasonably be served by issuance of an order to show cause and/or plenary disposition of the matter. The conviction is vacated.
The matter is remanded to the trial court for resentencing not inconsistent with Miller and Gutierrez.
McINTYRE, J.
WE CONCUR:
BENKE, Acting P. J.
HUFFMAN, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Gutierrez S206365; S206771 · 2014-05-05
- People v. Romero S030160 · 1994-11-10