Source: http://www.scribd.com/doc/103938092/CALIFORNIA-SUP-COURT-People-v-Caballero-Decision
Timestamp: 2015-07-28 15:54:55
Document Index: 504247403

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 664', '§ 12022', '§ 12022', '§ 186', '§ 12022', '§ 12022', '§ 12022']

P. 1CALIFORNIA SUP COURT People v Caballero DecisionCALIFORNIA SUP COURT People v Caballero DecisionRatings: (0)|Views: 6|Likes: 0Published by Francisco EstradaMore info:Categories:Types, Research, LawPublished by: Francisco Estrada on Aug 25, 2012Copyright:Attribution Non-commercialAvailability:Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate content|Add to collectionSee moreSee lesshttps://www.scribd.com/doc/103938092/CALIFORNIA-SUP-COURT-People-v-Caballero-Decision08/25/2012pdftextoriginal 1
THE PEOPLE, ))Plaintiff and Respondent, )) S190647v. )) Ct.App. 2/4RODRIGO CABALLERO, ) B217709/B221833)Defendant and Appellant. )____________________________________)) Los Angeles CountyIn re RODRIGO CABALLERO, ) Super. Ct. No. MA043902)on Habeas Corpus )____________________________________)In
(2010) 560 U.S. ___ [130 S.Ct. 2011] (
), thehigh court held that the Eighth Amendment prohibits states from sentencing a juvenile convicted of nonhomicide offenses to life imprisonment without thepossibility of parole. (
at p. ___ [130 S.Ct. at p. 2030].)
We must determinehere whether a 110-year-to-life sentence imposed on a juvenile convicted of nonhomicide offenses contravenes
‟s mandate against cr uel and unusualpunishment under the Eighth Amendment. We conclude it does.
The Eighth Amendment applies to the states. (
(1962) 370 U.S. 660.)
On the afternoon of June 6, 2007, 16-year-old defendant, RodrigoCaballero, opened fire on three teenage boys who were members of a rival gang.Adrian Bautista, Carlos Vargas, and Vincent Valle, members of the Val VerdePark Gang, were rounding a street corner on foot when defendant jumped out of agreen Toyota and yelled out the name of his gang,
either “Vario Lancas” or “Lancas.” Vargas responded by shouting “Val Verde.” Defendant began shooting
at the group. Neither Vargas nor Valle were hit by the gunfire; Bautista was hit inthe upper back, near his shoulder blade.A jury convicted defendant of three counts of attempted murder (Pen.Code, §§ 664, 187, subd. (a)).
The jury found true that defendant personally andintentionally discharged a firearm (§ 12022.53, subds. (c)-(d)) and inflicted greatbodily harm on one victim (§ 12022.7), and that defendant committed the crimesfor the benefit of a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(C)). Defendant, adiagnosed schizophrenic, testified in his own behalf after he was treated with
antipsychotic medication. He told the jury both that he “was straight trying to killsomebody” and that he di
d not intend to kill anyone. The trial court sentenceddefendant to 15 years to life for the first attempted murder count, plus aconsecutive 25 years to life for the firearm enhancement. (§ 12022.53, subd. (d).)For the second attempted murder, the court imposed an additional consecutiveterm of 15 years to life, plus 20 years for the firearm enhancement on that count.(§ 12022.53, subd. (c).) On the third attempted murder count, the court sentenceddefendant to another consecutive term of 15 years to life, plus 20 years for thecorresponding firearm enhancement. (§ 12022.53,
subd. (c)). Defendant‟s total
sentence was 110 years to life. The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court‟s
judgment in its entirety.
We granted defendant‟s petition for review
prohibits imposition of the sentence here.
, the 16-year-old defendant, Terrance Graham, committed armedburglary and attempted armed robbery, was sentenced to probation, andsubsequently violated the terms of his probation when he committed other crimes.(
, 560 U.S. at p. ___ [130 S.Ct. at p. 2020].) The trial courtrevoked his probation and sentenced him to life in prison for the burglary. (
Graham‟s sentence amounted to a life sentenc
e without the possibility of parolebecause Florida had abolished its parole system, leaving Graham with nopossibility of release unless he was granted executive clemency. (
Id . at p. ___[130 S.Ct. at p. 2015].)The high court stated that nonhomicide crimes differ from homicide crimes
in a “moral sense” and that a juvenile nonhomicide offender has a “twicediminished moral culpability” as opposed to an adult convicted of murder — bothbecause of his crime and because of his undeveloped moral sense. (
, 560 U.S. at p. ___ [130 S.Ct. at p. 2027].) The court relied on studies
showing that “developments in psychology and brain science continue to show
fundamental differences between juvenile and adult minds. For example, parts of the brain involved in behavior control continue to mature through lateadolescence. [Citations.] Juveniles are [also] more capable of change than areadults,
and their actions are less likely to be evidence of „irretrievably depravedcharacter‟ than are the actions of adults.” (
at p. ___ [130 S.Ct. at p. 2026],quoting
(2005) 543 U.S. 551, 570.) No legitimate penological
Similar to CALIFORNIA SUP COURT People v Caballero DecisionSHAW Reducing the Excessive Use of Pretrial DetentionFrancisco EstradaJuvenile Justice Annual Report 2008 2009Francisco EstradaMeasures of Deprivation of Liberty for Young Offenders How to Enrich International Standards in Juvenile JusticeFrancisco EstradaHighlights From Pathways to Desistance a Longitudinal Study of Serious Adolescent OffendersFrancisco EstradaBrief for Juvenile Law Center Et Al.Francisco EstradaProyecto RPA Aprobado Camara dIputados en InglesFrancisco EstradaGRIFFIN ET AL Trying Juveniles as Adults an Analysis of State Transfer Laws and ReportingFrancisco EstradaUNICEF Tough is Not Enough Getting Smart About Youth CrimeFrancisco Estrada National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges A Judicial Guide to Child Safety in Custody Cases (2009)Francisco EstradaA Road Map for Juvenile Justice ReformFrancisco EstradaSullivan v. FloridaFrancisco EstradaDrug Court Services for Female Offenders, 1996-1999 Evaluation of the Brooklyn Treatment CourtFrancisco EstradaMcD. v L. & anorFrancisco EstradaJ.D.B. v. North CarolinaFrancisco EstradaBrief of Jeffrey Fagan Et AlFrancisco EstradaCULLEN the Twelve People Who Saved RehabilitationFrancisco EstradaYAQUB Child Migrants With and Without Parents a Chile and South AfricaFrancisco EstradaJuveniles Processed in Arizona Justice System 2005Francisco EstradaGuggenheim Graham v. FloridaFrancisco EstradaOJJDP 2012 Journal of Juvenile JusticeFrancisco EstradaHelping a Child Be a Witness in Court 101 Things to Know, Say and DoFrancisco EstradaAtkins v. VirginiaFrancisco EstradaGraham v. FloridaFrancisco EstradaBreaking the Cycle Effective Punishment, Rehabilitation and Sentencing of OffendersFrancisco EstradaBrief for Former Juvenile Court JudgesFrancisco Estrada2011 Compendium Re Offending Stats TablesFrancisco EstradaMaryland v. ShatzerFrancisco EstradaGRISSO Guiding Principles When Developing Treatment Programs for Young Offenders With Mental DisordersFrancisco EstradaRecidivism Juveniles Drug Court ProgramsFrancisco EstradaMiller v AlabamaFrancisco Estrada
RecommendedSHAW Reducing the Excessive Use of Pretrial DetentionFrancisco EstradaJuvenile Justice Annual Report 2008 2009Francisco EstradaMeasures of Deprivation of Liberty for Young Offenders How to Enrich International Standards in Juvenile JusticeFrancisco EstradaHighlights From Pathways to Desistance a Longitudinal Study of Serious Adolescent OffendersFrancisco EstradaBrief for Juvenile Law Center Et Al.Francisco EstradaProyecto RPA Aprobado Camara dIputados en InglesFrancisco EstradaGRIFFIN ET AL Trying Juveniles as Adults an Analysis of State Transfer Laws and ReportingFrancisco EstradaUNICEF Tough is Not Enough Getting Smart About Youth CrimeFrancisco Estrada National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges A Judicial Guide to Child Safety in Custody Cases (2009)Francisco EstradaBecause custody cases involving abuse have intermingled issues of safety and ...A Road Map for Juvenile Justice ReformFrancisco EstradaSullivan v. FloridaFrancisco EstradaDrug Court Services for Female Offenders, 1996-1999 Evaluation of the Brooklyn Treatment CourtFrancisco EstradaMcD. v L. & anorFrancisco EstradaJ.D.B. v. North CarolinaFrancisco EstradaBrief of Jeffrey Fagan Et AlFrancisco EstradaCULLEN the Twelve People Who Saved RehabilitationFrancisco EstradaYAQUB Child Migrants With and Without Parents a Chile and South AfricaFrancisco EstradaJuveniles Processed in Arizona Justice System 2005Francisco EstradaGuggenheim Graham v. FloridaFrancisco EstradaOJJDP 2012 Journal of Juvenile JusticeFrancisco EstradaHelping a Child Be a Witness in Court 101 Things to Know, Say and DoFrancisco EstradaAtkins v. VirginiaFrancisco EstradaGraham v. FloridaFrancisco EstradaBreaking the Cycle Effective Punishment, Rehabilitation and Sentencing of OffendersFrancisco EstradaBrief for Former Juvenile Court JudgesFrancisco Estrada2011 Compendium Re Offending Stats TablesFrancisco EstradaMaryland v. ShatzerFrancisco EstradaGRISSO Guiding Principles When Developing Treatment Programs for Young Offenders With Mental DisordersFrancisco EstradaRecidivism Juveniles Drug Court ProgramsFrancisco EstradaMiller v AlabamaFrancisco EstradaPrevious|NextPage 1 of 8