People v. Olmos

People v. Olmos · California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Five · March 10, 2025 · No. B333138

Summary

The California Court of Appeal affirmed the denial of Luis Olmos’s petition for recall and resentencing under Penal Code section 1170(d)(1)(A). The court held that Olmos’s 33-years-to-life sentence, imposed for crimes committed when he was 17, was not the functional equivalent of life without parole. The court also declined to remand for reconsideration based on the corrected sentence because such a remand would be idle.

Court
California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Five
Writing for the Court
D. Kim, J.; Baker, Acting P. J.; Moor, J.
Jurisdiction
California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Five
Decision date
March 10, 2025
Docket number
B333138
Procedural posture
Appeal from an order of the Los Angeles County Superior Court denying a petition for recall and resentencing under Penal Code section 1170(d)(1)(A).
Standard of review
The opinion does not expressly identify a standard of review; it reviews whether the trial court erred in concluding that the sentence was not the functional equivalent of life without parole.
Precedential value
Published and certified for publication
Parties
Luis Olmos v. The People
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

post-conviction reliefsentence modificationsentencingappellate procedurestatutory interpretation

Practice areas

California criminal lawjuvenile sentencingpost-conviction reliefappellate procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether a juvenile offender sentenced to 33 years to life received a sentence that was the functional equivalent of life without parole for purposes of Penal Code section 1170(d)(1)(A).
  2. Whether the matter should be remanded for the trial court to reconsider the petition based on the correct 33-years-to-life sentence rather than the mistakenly stated 41-years-to-life sentence.

Holdings

  1. The trial court did not err in concluding that Olmos's 33-years-to-life sentence was not the functional equivalent of life without parole.
  2. Remand was not required because reconsideration of the correct, shorter sentence would be an idle act after the court determined that the mistakenly stated 41-years-to-life sentence was not the functional equivalent of life without parole.

Key quotations

Accordingly, we consider whether defendant's 33-years-to-life sentence is the functional equivalent of LWOP. (Discussion)
Thus, we hold the trial court did not err when it concluded that defendant had not been sentenced to the functional equivalent of LWOP. (Discussion)
The order denying defendant's section 1170(d)(1)(A) petition is affirmed. (Disposition)

Factual background

In 1996, Luis Olmos and six fellow gang members attacked three members of a rival gang. Olmos stabbed Manuel Chavez, who died after two other gang members also shot him, and other gang members beat Manuel Garcia until he lost consciousness. Olmos was 17 when he committed the offenses and was later sentenced to an aggregate term of 33 years to life.

Procedural history

Olmos was convicted in 2001 of first degree murder, attempted premeditated murder, and assault, based on offenses committed when he was 17, and received an aggregate sentence of 33 years to life. In 2023, he petitioned for recall and resentencing under Penal Code section 1170(d)(1)(A), arguing that his sentence was the functional equivalent of life without parole. The superior court denied the petition after mistakenly treating the sentence as 41 years to life. This court treated Olmos's habeas petition as a timely notice of appeal and affirmed the denial.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…