PEOPLE v. MENDEZ
Filed 9/1/10
FOR PUBLICATION
IN
THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND
APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION
TWO
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
VICTOR MANUEL MENDEZ et al.,
Defendants and Appellants.
B217683
(Los Angeles
County
Super. Ct.
No. LA056790)
APPEALS
from the judgments of the Superior Court
of Los Angeles
County. Martin L. Herscovitz,
Judge. Affirmed in part as modified;
reversed in part and remanded.
Melanie K.
Dorian, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant
Victor Mendez.
Linda
Acaldo, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant
Luis Enrique Ramos.
Edmund G.
Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney
General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Assistant Attorney General, Linda C. Johnson,
Scott A. Taryle and Stephanie A. Miyoshi, Deputy Attorneys General, for
Plaintiff and Respondent.
Appellants
Victor Manuel Mendez and Luis Enrique Ramos, juveniles who were tried as
adults, appeal from judgments entered following a jury trial that resulted in
their convictions of one count of carjacking
(Pen. Code, § 215, subd. (a)),[1] one count of assault with a firearm (§ 245,
subd. (a)(2)), and seven counts of second
degree robbery (§ 211), including criminal
street gang and firearm enhancements on each count (§§ 186.22,
subd. (b)(1)(C); 12022, subd. (a)(1); 1203.06, subd. (a)(1); 12022.5,
subd. (a); and 12022.53, subds. (b) & (e)(1)). Mendez was age 16 at the time he committed
the crimes. He was sentenced to state
prison for 84 years to life. Ramos, who
was one year younger, was sentenced to state prison for 48 years and eight
months.
In response
to appellants' contentions, we find sufficient evidence supports the jury's
findings on the gang enhancements and that Mendez personally used a firearm;
that the criminal conviction
assessments were properly imposed; and that there are typographical errors in
Mendez's abstract of judgment that must be corrected. We also find that Mendez's lengthy
sentence--which was imposed on a juvenile who did not commit a homicide or
inflict bodily injury and which makes him ineligible for parole until well
beyond his life expectancy--constitutes cruel and unusual punishment and is
therefore unconstitutional under the federal and state Constitutions. We remand Mendez's case for reconsideration
of his sentence, and direct the trial court to correct his abstract of
judgment. In all other respects, the
judgments are affirmed.
FACTS
Prosecution Case
On June 30, 2007, at approximately 11:40 p.m., Jose Garcia was stopped at an intersection in
Palmdale in his green Chevrolet Lumina when a white car with appellants and at
least two other people pulled alongside him.
Appellants got out and approached Garcia, and one of them asked him if
he was â€
| Description | Appellants Victor Manuel Mendez and Luis Enrique Ramos, juveniles who were tried as adults, appeal from judgments entered following a jury trial that resulted in their convictions of one count of carjacking (Pen. Code, § 215, subd. (a)),[1] one count of assault with a firearm (§ 245, subd. (a)(2)), and seven counts of second degree robbery (§ 211), including criminal street gang and firearm enhancements on each count (§§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(C); 12022, subd. (a)(1); 1203.06, subd. (a)(1); 12022.5, subd. (a); and 12022.53, subds. (b) & (e)(1)). Mendez was age 16 at the time he committed the crimes. He was sentenced to state prison for 84 years to life. Ramos, who was one year younger, was sentenced to state prison for 48 years and eight months. In response to appellants' contentions, we find sufficient evidence supports the jury's findings on the gang enhancements and that Mendez personally used a firearm; that the criminal conviction assessments were properly imposed; and that there are typographical errors in Mendez's abstract of judgment that must be corrected. We also find that Mendez's lengthy sentence--which was imposed on a juvenile who did not commit a homicide or inflict bodily injury and which makes him ineligible for parole until well beyond his life expectancy--constitutes cruel and unusual punishment and is therefore unconstitutional under the federal and state Constitutions. Court remand Mendez's case for reconsideration of his sentence, and direct the trial court to correct his abstract of judgment. In all other respects, the judgments are affirmed. |
| Rating |
