PEOPLE v. CONTRERAS

Respondent’s Supplemental Brief

Cal.July 14, 2017

Jn the Supreme Court of the State of California THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Plaintiff and Respondent, V. LEONEL CONTRERASand WILLIAM STEVEN RODRIGUEZ, Defendants and Appellants. Case No. 8224564 SUPREME COURT FILED JUL 14 2017 Jorge Navarrete Clerk San Diego County Superior Court, Case No. SCD236438 Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate Deputy District, Division One, No. D063428 The Honorable Peter C. Deddeh, Judge RESPONDENT’S SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF XAVIER BECERRA Attorney General of California GERALD A. ENGLER Chief Assistant Attorney General JOSHUA KLEIN Deputy Solicitor General JULIE L. GARLAND Senior Assistant Attorney General JOSHUA KLEIN Deputy Solicitor General STEVE OETTING Supervising Deputy Attorney General State Bar No. 142868 600 West Broadway,Suite 1800 San Diego, CA 92101 P.O. Box 85266 San Diego, CA 92186-5266 Telephone: (619) 645-2206 Fax: (619) 645-2271 Email: Steve.Oetting@doj.ca.gov Attorneysfor Plaintiffand Respondent TABLE OF CONTENTS Page CONCLUSIONcececeeecceeeeneeeeensectsesnseceessseccarsraseeesareeseaseesnaseeessaaseseesaees 6 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE...cee ceecccecscceseeeeeeetseetneesseneeenneenaes 7 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page CASES Angel v. Commonwealth (2011) 281 Va. 248oeceecesesenecseteeseseesececeeeseesssestsceussesssesesevssserees4 Graham v. Florida (2010) 560 U.S. 48 voceccccesssececsssceccecceecerectsseecesssereeeesttauaacs 4,5, 6 LeBlanc v. Mathena (4th Cir, 2016) 841 F.3d 256wcccecscessssccccccsscccsssccecssseceessesevsceseensacs 4 Virginia v. LeBlanc (2017) 582 U.S. [2017 WL 2507375] oe cecccsssesesesscseteeseesseseesees 4,5,6 STATUTES 28 U.S.C. § 2254(A)1)occ ecccccccsceceesssscessscssssscseseeseessessrscecsusessateeseesesntesesaseess 5 Antiterrroism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214 (1996)eceeeeeeees 5 CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS United States Constitution Eighth Amendmentbesseveucauasseececesenceeaeususcuseseeaecssceccseeenscansessessesuaeesseuaess 4,5 After briefing in this case was complete, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Virginia v. LeBlanc (2017) 582 U.S. __ [2017 WL 2507375] (LeBlanc). There, the high court overturned the Fourth Circuit’s decision in LeBlanc v. Mathena (4th Cir. 2016) 841 F.3d 256, a decision that appellant Contreras relies on at length in arguing that geriatric release programs do not provide a meaningful opportunity to obtain release. (Contreras BOM 29-31.) The Supreme Court held that a Virginia state court decision upholding a life sentence for a 16-year-old who committed rape wasneither contrary to nor an unreasonable application of the “meaningful opportunity” for release standard of Graham v. Florida (2010) 560 U.S. 48 because the defendant waseligible for geriatric release beginning at age 60. (LeBlanc, supra, 2017 WL 2507375 **3-4.) Because California’s geriatric release program is substantially similar to the program in Virginia, it follows it would not be unreasonable for this Court to concludethat appellants likewise have a meaningful opportunity for release. At a minimum,the LeBlanc holding casts doubt on appellants’ assertion that the Eighth Amendmentrequires a parole hearing after a juvenile defendant has served no more than 25 years in prison. Underthe Virginia geriatric release program at issue in LeBlanc, defendants whoserve a certain minimum numberofyears in prison (either 5 or 10) and whoreach a specified age (either 60 or 65) are entitled to be considered for parole based on the normalparole consideration process. The Virginia Supreme Court had held that this program satisfies Graham because it provides a meaningful opportunity to obtain release. (Angelv. Commonwealth (2011) 281 Va. 248, 275.) In the case ofLeBlanc, however, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals concluded such a rule was objectively unreasonable, granted a petition for writ of habeas corpus and overturned his sentence. The Commonwealth of Virginia petitioned for certiorari, and the high court granted the writ. (LeBlanc, supra, 2017 WL 2507375 * 2-3.) | The Supreme Court determinedthat the Fourth Circuit erred by failing to grant the state court decision the deference required under the Antiterrroism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), 28 U.S.C. section 2254(d)(1). The state court decision, determined the high court, was not objectively unreasonable in concludingthat the geriatric release program satisfied Graham by relying on normalparole factors, ~ which would allow the parole board to decide whether the defendant had demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation. (LeBlanc, supra, 2017 WL 2507375 *3.) To be sure, the holding ofLeBlancis limited by its procedural context. The Supreme Court expressed no view on the underlying Eighth Amendmentclaim, noting that reasonable arguments could be made on both sides. (LeBlanc, supra, 2017 WL 2507375 *4.) Nevertheless, the decision is useful becauseit held that it is not objectively unreasonable to conclude that Graham could besatisfied where (1) the defendantis eligible for parole consideration for parole at age 60 and(ii) such eligibility is based on normal parole considerations. The LeBlanc decision demonstrates, contrary to appellant Contreras’s assertions, that it is not “abundantly clear” that “any similar program in California also would not pass constitutional muster.” (Contreras BOM 31.) California’s program for geriatric release is substantially similar to Virginia’s. As with Virginia’s program, both appellants here would be eligible for parole consideration at age 60. (Resp.’s Mot. for Jud. Not. Exh. 2.) In California, the Parole Board is authorized to consider “all other relevant information” when determining the appropriatenessof geriatric release. (/bid.) This relevant information would naturallyinclude consideration of the defendant’s demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation. But even outside the context of a geriatric release, the LeBlanc decision remains useful because it demonstrates that it is not objectively unreasonable to concludethat consideration for parole beginning at age 60 satisfies Graham. Thisconclusion runsdirectly contrary to appellants’ suggestion that it is cruel and unusual to impose a term of more than 25 years in prison before having a first opportunity to demonstrate maturity and rehabilitation for parole. (Contreras BOM 32; Rodriguez BOM 20-21.) CONCLUSION Accordingly, for the reasons here andin the prior briefs, respondent urges this court to reverse the decision of the Court of Appeal and affirm the trial court’s sentence. Dated: July 12, 2017 $D2015800885 71335238.doc Respectfully submitted, XAVIER BECERRA Attorney General of California GERALD A. ENGLER Chief Assistant Attorney General JOSHUA KLEIN Deputy Solicitor General JULIE L. GARLAND Senior Assistant Attorney General JOSH KLEIN DeputySolicitor General _, é sO fi — STEVE OETTING Supervising Deputy Attorney General Attorneysfor Plaintiffand Respondent CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE I certify that the attached RESPONDENT’S SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFuses a 13 point Times New Romanfont and contains 705 words. Dated: July 12, 2017 XAVIER BECERRA Attorney Generalot California Ly / “STEVE OETTING YL Supervising Deputy Attorney General Attorneysfor Plaintiffand Respondent f ef ~ae / iawwe DECLARATION OF SERVICEBY U.S. MAIL Case Name: People v. Leonel Contreras, et al & William Rodriguez, et al. No.:S224564 I declare: I am employedin the Office of the Attorney General, whichis the office of a member of the California State Bar, at which member's direction this service is made. I am 18 years of age or older andnot a party to this matter. I am familiar with the business practice at the Office of the Attorney General for collection and processing of correspondencefor mailing with the United States Postal Service. In accordancewith thatpractice, correspondence placed in the internal mail collection system at the Office of the Attorney Generalis deposited with the United States Postal Service with postage thereonfully prepaid that same day in the ordinary course of business. On July 13, 2017, I served the attached RESPONDENT’S SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF by placing a true copythereofenclosedin a sealed envelopein the internal mail collection system at the Office of the Attorney General at 600 West Broadway, Suite 1800, P.O. Box 85266, San Diego, CA 92186-5266, addressed as follows, and/or electronically via TrueFiling, as specified: Nancy J. King Attorney at Law 1901 First Ave., Suite 138 Honorable Peter C. Deddeh San Diego, CA 92101 c/o Clerk, Criminal Appeals Attorneyfor Appellant Contreras San Diego Superior Court (Served via TruFiling and U.S. Mail) 220 West Broadway San Diego, CA 92101 Daniel J. Kessler (served via TrueFiling and U.S. Mail) Attorney at Law Kessler & Seecof, LLP Office of the District Attorney 3990 Old Town Avenue, Suite B-109 Attn: Appellate Division San Diego, CA 92110 330 West Broadway,Suite 1300 Attorneyfor Appellant Rodriguez San Diego, CA 92101 (Served via TruFiling and U.S. Mail) (served via TrueFiling and U.S. Mail) . Kevin J. Lane, Clerk Fourth Appellate District California Court of Appeal, Div. One 750 B Street, Suite 300 San Diego, CA 92101 (Served via TrueFiling only) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws ofthe State of California the foregoingis true and correct and that this declaration was executed on July 13, 2017, at San Diego, California. L. Blume YL. Agdome Declarant : Signature $D2015800885 71335806.doc