People v. Ross CA3

DISCUSSION

Defendant argues that all year-to-life sentences that cannot possibly be completed during the inmate’s lifetime (de facto LWOP’s) are cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the federal and state Constitutions. (U.S. Const., 8th Amend.; Cal. Const., art. I, § 17.)2 “[A]lthough [defendant] has technically forfeited the issue on appeal because he did not raise the objection below (People v. DeJesus (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 1, 27), we ‘shall reach the merits under the relevant constitutional standards, in the interest of judicial economy to prevent the inevitable ineffectiveness-of-counsel claim.’ (People v. Norman (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 221, 229-230.)” (People v. Russell (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 981, 993.) We find defendant’s claim meritless, though we recognize that the sentence imposed is longer than his probable lifespan.

2 A punishment violates the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution if it is “grossly disproportionate to the severity of the crime.” (Ewing v. California (2003) 538 U.S. 11, 21 [155 L.Ed.2d 108, 117].) A punishment may amount to cruel or unusual punishment under article I, section 17 of the California Constitution if “it is so…