Palafox

People v. Palafox

Good Law
179 Cal. Rptr. 3d 789·2014 Cal. App. LEXIS 1002·231 Cal. App. 4th 68
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 3, 2014F067413California8,552 words

Opinion

Opinion

Detjen, J.

Luis William Palafox (defendant) appeals from the imposition of consecutive terms of life in prison without the possibility of parole (LWOP) for two special-circumstance murders he and Kyle Hoffman committed when both were 16 years old. In this case of first impression, we conclude the sentence is constitutional despite the trial court’s inability to exclude the possibility of rehabilitation. No particular factor, relevant to the decision whether to impose LWOP on a juvenile who has committed murder, predominates under the law. Hence, as long as a trial court gives due consideration to an offender’s youth and attendant characteristics, as required by Miller v. Alabama (2012) 567 U.S. __ [ 183 L.Ed.2d 407 , 132 S.Ct. 2455 ] (Miller), it may, in exercising its discretion under Penal Code section 190.5, subdivision (b), give such weight to the relevant factors as it reasonably determines is appropriate under all the circumstances of the case. Accordingly, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Sometime between August 4 and 6, 2008, an elderly couple, Joseph and Dorothy Parrott, were murdered in their beds at their Bakersfield home. Joseph Parrott was stabbed multiple…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.