People v. Hart CA4/3

DISCUSSION

1. Nonapplication or Misapplication of Law Governing the Sentencing of Juveniles Defendant contends the court failed to apply or misapplied law governing the sentencing of juvenile offenders. (See Miller v. Alabama (2012) 567 U.S. __ [132 S.Ct. 2455, 2469, 183 L.Ed.2d 407, 424] (Miller), Graham v. Florida (2010) 560 U.S. 48,

2 73, 79 [130 S.Ct 2011, 176 L.Ed.2d 825] (Graham), Roper v. Simmons (2005) 543 U.S. 551, 569-570 [125 S.Ct. 1183, 161 L.Ed.2d 1] (Roper), and People v. Caballero (2012) 55 Cal.4th 262, 268 (Caballero).) We disagree.

a. Standard of Review Although both parties agree a trial court’s sentencing decision is generally reviewed for abuse of discretion (People v. Sandoval (2007) 41 Cal.4th 825, 847), defendant correctly asserts that an error of law, either in the law to be applied or the misapplication of law to a given set of facts, requires a de novo review. “‘“The scope of discretion always reside in the particular law being applied, i.e., in the ‘legal principles governing the subject of [the] action . . . .’ Action that transgresses the confines of the applicable principles of law is outside the scope of discretion and we call such action an…