People v. Everett CA3

DISCUSSION

Defendant contends his sentence of 210 years to life cannot possibly be completed in his lifetime and thus constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the federal and state Constitutions. (U.S. Const., 8th Amend.; Cal. Const., art. I, § 17.)1 Acknowledging his failure to specifically object on those grounds below, defendant asks us to either deem the objection adequately made or consider the issue in any event to forestall a subsequent claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. “[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 the claim lacks merit. Defendant’s claim rests entirely on a legal theory put forward in the concurring and dissenting opinions of the late California Supreme Court Justice Stanley Mosk. Justice Mosk opined that a sentence that cannot…