People v. Escamilla

2 Citing cases

  1. People v. Jackson

    No. S267812 (Cal. Jun. 9, 2021)   Cited 1 times

    Or it can altogether eliminate life without the possibility of parole for youth offenders - a category the Legislature, relying on science, has defined to include persons between 18 and 25 years old - by making all such life inmates eligible for a youth offender parole hearing. As of this writing, at least 11 justices of the Court of Appeal have called for legislative reconsideration of section 3051. (In re Murray(2021) 63 Cal.App.5th 184, 192-193 (maj. opn. of Richman, Acting P. J., joined by Stewart and Miller, JJ.); Jackson, supra, 61 Cal.App.5th at pp. 201-202 (conc. opn. of Dato, J.); Acosta, supra, 60 Cal.App.5th at p. 781 (maj. opn. of Goethals, J., joined by Bedsworth, Acting P. J.); Montelongo, supra, 55 Cal.App.5th at p. 1041 (conc. Opn. of Segal, J.); In re Jones (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 477, 486-487 (conc. opn. of Pollak, P. J., joined by Streeter, J.); People v. Escamilla (Mar. 18, 2021, F077568) [nonpub. opn.] (maj. opn. of Meehan, J., joined by DeSantos, J.); see also In re Williams(2020) 57 Cal.App.5th 427, 436, fn. 7 [acknowledging statutory tension]; People v. Smith(Feb. 24, 2021, B305527) [nonpub. opn.] [same].) I again echo my colleagues in “invit[ing] the Legislature to reconsider whether our evolving knowledge of brain development suggests that unalterable judgments about individuals based on what they did between age 18 and 25 may be unjustifiable.”

  2. People v. Garcia

    No. B308824 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 4, 2022)   Cited 1 times

    (Jackson, supra, 61 Cal.App.5th at pp. 201-202 (conc. opn. of Dato, J.); Acosta, supra, 60 Cal.App.5th at p. 781 (maj. opn. of Goethals, J., joined by Bedsworth, Acting P. J.); People v. Montelongo (2020) 55 Cal.App.5th 1016, 1041 (conc. opn. of Segal, J.); In re Jones, supra, 42 Cal.App.5th at pp. 486-487 (conc. opn. of Pollak, P. J., joined by Streeter, J.); see also Williams, supra, 57 Cal.App.5th at p. 436, fn. 7 [acknowledging tension between § 3051's parole eligibility scheme and equal protection principles]; People v. Escamilla (Mar. 18, 2021, F077568) [nonpub. opn.] (maj. opn. of Meehan, J., joined by DeSantos, J.); People v. Smith (Feb. 24, 2021, B305527) [nonpub. opn.] [same].) California Supreme