People v. Izaguirre CA2/2

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review Whether Izaguirre’s sentence is the functional equivalent of LWOP is a mixed question of law and fact. (See Crocker National Bank v. City and County of San Francisco (1989) 49 Cal.3d 881, 888.) It is a predominantly legal question because the underlying facts here are not disputed, so we review it de novo. (See People v. Cromer (2001) 24 Cal.4th 889, 894; Crocker, supra, at p. 888.) B. Overview of Section 1170, Subdivision (d)(1) Eligibility Section 1170, subdivision (d)(1)(A) allows certain defendants serving a LWOP sentence (including those who were under the age of 18 at the time of their offenses and who have been incarcerated for at least 15 years)3 to petition their sentencing courts for recall and resentencing. (See In re Kirchner

3 The additional statutory requirements for relief are not relevant to this appeal. (See, e.g., § 1170, subds. (d)(1)(B), (2), (5).)

3 (2017) 2 Cal.5th 1040, 1049–1050; People v. Sorto (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 435, 442–444.) The language of that statute refers to defendants “sentenced to imprisonment for life without the possibility of parole” and does not explicitly mention offenders serving sentences that…