State high court to weigh life-without-parole sentencing for young adult offenders
High Court #HighCourt
The Supreme Court of California, based at the Earl Warren Building in San Francisco, has agreed to review whether murderers younger than 25 can be sentenced to life without parole or should instead get parole hearings after 25 years in prison.
The state Supreme Court agreed Wednesday to decide whether youths who commit murders when they are between the ages of 18 and 25 are legally entitled to parole hearings after 25 years in prison, hearings already required by law for offenders who were younger when they committed murder or other violent crimes.
After the U.S. Supreme Court abolished the death penalty for defendants younger than 18 in 2005, California allowed youths below 18 to be sentenced to life in prison for some categories of murders, such as multiple murders or those committed during a rape or robbery or as a gang member, defined in the law as “special circumstances.” But unlike older defendants, they are entitled under state law to a youthful offender parole hearing after 25 years. At those hearings, the parole board must consider characteristics of young people that may have contributed to their crime, such as impulsiveness and lack of maturity, as factors that could potentially favor their release.
The same hearings are also required after 25 years for defendants between 18 and 25 who have been convicted of other crimes with long sentences — for example, someone sentenced to 70 years to life for shooting and wounding two victims during an attempted robbery. But the law allows youths over 18 to be sentenced to death or to life without the possibility of parole for “special circumstance” murders.
Wednesday’s court order does not affect death penalty cases, only life-without-parole sentences of those convicted of murders before turning 25. Some appellate courts have upheld those sentences, including the First District Court of Appeal in San Francisco, which in October 2021 affirmed the life-without-parole sentence of a San Francisco man convicted of murdering a potential witness against him in 2003, when he was 24. The court said such sentences can be justified because they are imposed for particularly serious crimes.
But the Second District Court of Appeal in Los Angeles offered a different assessment last October when it ordered a parole hearing for Tony Hardin, sentenced to life without parole in 1990 for robbing and murdering an elderly woman in Los Angeles County a year earlier, when he was 25.
Permanently denying release in such a case prevents the state and its parole board from considering research that shows “the human brain — especially those portions responsible for judgment and decision-making — continues to develop into a person’s mid-20s,” Justice Dennis Perluss said in a 3-0 ruling.
“It prevents taking into account the family and home environment that surrounds him,” as well as youths’ “impetuosity” and inability to appreciate the risks and consequences of their actions, Perluss said. He noted that the ruling would not require the Board of Parole Hearings to grant release to youngsters who have spent 25 years in prison for such crimes, only that the board must decide whether they can be released safely under court supervision.
After Attorney General Rob Bonta’s office appealed the ruling in November, the state Supreme Court voted unanimously Wednesday to review Hardin’s case and resolve the conflict between appellate courts on the issue. A hearing will be scheduled at a later date.
The case is People v. Hardin, S277487.
Bob Egelko is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. Email: begelko@sfchronicle.com Twitter: @BobEgelko