Life Sent./Without Parole-Special Circumstances
Category > Life Sent./Without Parole-Special Circumstances
A defendant who has been sentenced to life without possibility of parole under the "drive-by murder" special circumstance is not subject to an additional 25 years-to-life under section 12022.53, subd.(d).Defendant was convicted of first degree murder with the "drive by" special circumstance under Penal Code section 190.2, subd. (a)(21). The trial court sentenced him to life without possibility of parole for that offense. In addition, the court imposed a consecutive term of 25 years-to-life based on the finding that defendant discharged a firearm causing death under section 12022.53, subd.(d). However, the enhancement was stricken on appeal because subdivision (j) of section 12022.53 precluded the trial court from adding the enhancement to a sentence of death or life without the possibility of parole under section 190.2, subd. (a)(21).id: 17246
Court has no authority to alter the terms of an otherwise negotiated plea bargain once it has approved the agreement.<i> In People v. Williams</i>, (1981) 30 Cal.3d 470, the Supreme Court held that a court retains discretion under Penal Code section 1385 to dismiss a jury's finding of special circumstances in order to modify a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. However, a sentencing court does not have discretion to strike a special circumstance which is part of a negotiated plea which the court had previously approved.id: 11479
A 25 years-to-life gun use enhancement under section 12022.53, subd.(d) can be applied to an LWOP sentence.A 25 years-to-life sentence enhancement under Penal Code section 12022.53, subd.(d) can be imposed notwithstanding the circumstance that defendant's sentence for the underlying felony is life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. id: 18972
Court erred in reducing special circumstances murder to ordinary first degree murder to avoid the life without possibility of parole sentence.Defendant and codefendant planned to rob a drug dealer at his home. Defendant, who knew the victim gained entrance for the ostensible purpose of buying drugs, while codefendant waited outside with a gun. Codefendant then entered and after resistance, shot the drug dealer twice, killing him. Defendant was convicted of first degree murder with the felony murder special circumstance, burglary, and robbery. Because the prosecution did not seek the death penalty the sole punishment for defendant's special circumstance murder conviction was life without possibility of parole. The sentencing court found such punishment was cruel and unusual and reduced the offense to ordinary first degree murder. However, reducing the conviction to avoid the LWOP sentence was unlawful and unauthorized. Moreover, the LWOP sentence for defendant was not cruel and unusual punishment.id: 14126
Penal Code section 667.7 does not preclude the imposition of consecutive life terms on a defendant who commits several offenses, each of which is punishable under section 667.7.A defendant who has committed more than one violent felony, each of which independently would subject the defendant to a life term under Penal Code section 667.7, may receive consecutive life term sentences under section 667.7, and is not limited in a single proceeding under that statute to receive a potential sentence of a single life term. In imposing such life terms, the trial court retains discretion under section 669 to order that these terms be served either concurrently or consecutively.id: 10164
Defendant who committed second degree murder was properly sentenced under Penal Code section 667.7 rather than section 190.A defendant who is convicted of murder and who otherwise would be sentenced under Penal Code section 190 upon that conviction, must be sentenced under section 667.7 (the habitual offender provision predating the three strikes legislation) if he or she meets the requirements of habitual offender status specified under subdivision (a) of section 667.7.id: 10146
In calculating the minimum period of confinement a defendant must serve under a section 667.7 life term the court must include any enhancement imposed for a prior serious felony conviction.Penal code section 667, subdivision (a)(2), does not preclude use of a prior serious felony enhancement as a component in the calculation of the minimum period of imprisonment that a defendant must serve under a section 667.7 life term. Rather, the minimum period of imprisonment required under the second and third alternatives must include as a component the term of any enhancement imposed under section 667, subdivision (a), for a prior serious felony conviction.id: 10159
About Pat Ford
Pat Ford is a criminal defense lawyer in San Diego who works on appeals in some of the most difficult cases around the state. He has a great record for success and integrity. Pat has also published a criminal case law digest since 1984 that's used by judges and lawyers around the state. He also speaks and writes articles for criminal lawyers as well as consumers interested in the law. The consumer-related articles are intended to be informative but do not constitute legal advice.
Case of the Day
The case of the day summarizes a current case and is viewed by lawyers and judges around the state every day.
Exclusion of 18-25 year-olds from the youthful offender provisions of section 3051 did not violate equal protection. Penal Code section 3051 establishes a parole eligibility hearing for juveniles convicted of special circumstance murder and sentenced to life without the possibility of parole. Excluding persons 18-25 from the youthful offender parole hearing provision did not violate equal protection principles.id: 27245