The California Supreme Court ruled that certain juvenile offenders with serious offenses, mostly those serving Life without the Possibility of parole sentences are not eligible for parole hearing under the new state law for youth offenders, according to Cal Matters.
The Supreme Court voted on a 6-1 ruling, denying the court’s appeal for Tony Hardin.
“Under California law, special circumstance murder is a uniquely serious offense, punishable only by death or life without the possibility of parole,” wrote Associate Supreme Court Justice Leondra Kruger. “When it was considering whether to expand the youth offender parole system to include not only juvenile offenders but also certain young adults.
“The Legislature could rationally balance the seriousness of the offender’s crimes against the capacity of all young adults for growth, and determine that young adults who have committed certain very serious crimes should remain ineligible for release from prison,” continued Kruger.
Hardin was convicted of murder and robbery in Los Angeles at the age of 25. The jury agreed that the crime fit under the criteria of a “special circumstance” offense, but declined the Death Penalty and Hardin was sentenced to life without parole.
Hardin challenged his conviction in 2021, arguing that his exclusion from parole is a direct violation of the equal protection clause found in the Fourteenth Amendment.
The state’s Court of Appeals’ Second Appellate District accepted Hardin’s appeal, claiming he was eligible for a Franklin hearing as long as mitigating evidence was presented.
During this process, judges examine the offender’s state of mind when the crime was committed, if an adverse childhood environment played a factor, and if the individual comprehends the impact of his or her actions at the time of the offense.
“The (life without parole) exclusion offends the Legislature’s only express and articulated purpose of the youth offender parole eligibility scheme and lacks rationality,” Associate Supreme Court Justice Kelli Evans wrote in a dissent. “The exclusion bears the taint of racial prejudice and perpetuates extreme racial disparities plaguing our juvenile and criminal justice systems. Thus, I conclude it fails any mode of rational basis review.”
Evans disagreed with the ruling and expressed that Hardin’s denial for parole was a violation of the equal protection clause, noted the article.
The Legislature proposed a bill in 2013 that granted parole eligibility to youth offenders after serving 25 years of more in their term. In 2017, the Legislature amended the law to allow offenders 25 years old or younger to be eligible for parole hearings, but continuously rejected people in prison for life without parole.
