People v. Clark CA2/6

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 24, 2024B328101ACalifornia542 words

Opinion

Opinion

DISCUSSION

Clark asserts that the record reflects that his sentence is the functional equivalent of life without parole. He requests that we remand the matter for reevaluation of his petition. Section 1170, subdivision (d)(1)(A) allows a juvenile offender who has served at least 15 years of a sentence of life without parole to petition for recall of the sentence and resentencing to a term that includes an opportunity for parole. People v. Heard, supra, 83 Cal.App.5th 608, 629, expanded the reach of section 1170, subdivision (d)(1)(A) to juvenile offenders serving de facto sentences of life without parole. Clark’s sentence of 31 years to life is far less than the 103 years’ sentence imposed in Heard. It is also less than the 110- years-to-life term imposed in People v. Caballero (2012)

2 Cal.4th 262, 269, and the 50-years-to-life term imposed in People v. Contreras (2018) 4 Cal.5th 349, 369. Clark will be 50 years old in September 2028 and by then will have served nearly 22 years of his sentence (including presentence custody credit). He will be eligible for the Elderly Parole Program in September 2028. (§ 3055, subd. (a) [“The Elderly Parole Program is hereby established, to…

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.