People v. Williams CA2/6

facts surrounding the offenses are irrelevant to this appeal. (See People v. White (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 914, 916, fn. 2; People v. McNeely (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 739, 742.)

2 prosecution opposed his petition. The trial court found appellant ineligible for resentencing because he was not sentenced to LWOP or its functional equivalent “given the fact he’s eligible under youthful offender parole at age 37 in 2025, as well as an elderly parole eligibility at age 50.”

DISCUSSION

Appellant argues, and respondent concedes, remand is necessary because appellant was sentenced to de facto LWOP for crimes he committed as a juvenile. We agree. As the pertinent facts of this case are undisputed, we review de novo appellant’s eligibility for relief under section 1170, subdivision (d)(1). (See People v. Davis (2011) 202 Cal.App.4th 429, 438.) Section 1170, subdivision (d)(1) allows certain juvenile offenders who have served at least 15 years of an LWOP sentence to petition for recall and resentencing. People v. Heard held the plain language of section 1170 applies to LWOP sentences only, but denying section 1170, subdivision (d)(1) resentencing relief to juvenile offenders originally…