People v. Thompson

Summary

The California Court of Appeal affirmed the denial of Perrie Thompson’s petition for recall and resentencing under Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (d). Thompson, who was sentenced to 50 years to life for a homicide committed at age 17, argued that his sentence was functionally equivalent to life without parole and that excluding him from section 1170(d) relief violated equal protection. The court held that the functional-equivalence analysis from cases involving juvenile nonhomicide offenders did not establish eligibility for section 1170(d) relief and concluded that the statutory limitation was not irrational as applied to Thompson.

Holdings

1. The functional-equivalence analysis used in Contreras to assess Eighth Amendment limits on punishment for juvenile nonhomicide offenders does not automatically transfer to the equal protection context. Equal protection requires a separate rational-basis analysis.
2. Section 1170, subdivision (d)'s limitation of recall-and-resentencing eligibility to juvenile offenders sentenced to life without parole is not irrational as applied to a juvenile homicide offender sentenced to 50 years to life and therefore does not violate equal protection.
3. Thompson was not entitled to section 1170, subdivision (d), relief because his 50-years-to-life sentence did not establish an equal protection violation merely by being asserted to be functionally equivalent to life without parole.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Thompson's sentence of 50 years to life was the functional equivalent of life without parole for purposes of eligibility for relief under Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (d).
2. Whether excluding a juvenile homicide offender sentenced to 50 years to life from section 1170, subdivision (d), while allowing juvenile offenders sentenced to express life without parole to petition for relief, violated equal protection.
3. Whether People v. Contreras, People v. Heard, and People v. Sorto required the court to treat Thompson's sentence as functionally equivalent to life without parole in the equal protection analysis.

Disposition

affirmed