People v. Caceres CA2/3 ( 2024 )

Filed 10/25/24 P. v. Caceres CA2/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions
not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion
has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
THE PEOPLE, B332585
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. BA070847)
v.
JAIME CACERES,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, Ronald S. Coen, Judge. Affirmed.
Jaime Caceres, in propria persona; and Stanley Dale
Radtke, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for
Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗
Jaime Caceres appeals from an order denying his petition
for resentencing under Penal Code1 section 1170.03, which the
trial court treated as a petition for resentencing under section
1170, subdivision (d)(1). As such, the trial court denied the
petition, and Caceres appealed. His appellate counsel filed a
brief under People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216, and
Caceres filed a supplemental brief. The trial court did not err in
denying the petition.
A jury convicted Caceres of first degree murder (§ 187,
subd. (a); count 1), two counts of attempted murder (§§ 664, 187,
subd. (a); counts 2 & 3); and conspiracy to commit a crime (§ 182,
subd. (a)(1); count 4). In 1995, the trial court sentenced Caceres,
on count 1, to 25 years to life plus one year for a firearm
enhancement (§ 12022, subd. (a)(1)) and on count 2, to a
consecutive life term. On count 3, the trial court sentenced
Caceres to a concurrent life term, and on count 4 to 25 years to
life, stayed under section 654. Caceres was 16 years old when he
committed his crimes.
In 2023, Caceres petitioned for resentencing. In his
petition, Caceres argued that “sentencing enhancements and
juv[enile] policies must apply with equal force to sentences where
the judgment is final” and that his sentence was no longer
appropriate because he was a juvenile when he committed his
crimes.
On July 7, 2023, the trial court denied the petition, stating
that Caceres was sentenced to a “series of indeterminate
sentences” and not to life without parole or its functional
1 All further undesignated statutory references are to the
Penal Code.
2
equivalent.2 Rather, according “to California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) records,”3 Caceres had
been eligible for parole in 2016, was denied parole in 2017 after a
parole hearing, and was scheduled to have another parole
hearing in April 2024.
This appeal followed. Caceres’s appellate counsel filed an
opening brief that raised no issues and asked this court to
independently review the record under People v. Delgadillo,
supra, 14 Cal.5th 216. Caceres has submitted a supplemental
brief in which he reiterates that he was a juvenile when he
committed his crimes and, as such, should be afforded relief
based on the evolving understanding of juvenile criminal
culpability.
On its face, section 1170, subdivision (d), applies to
juveniles sentenced to explicit life without parole. Courts of
appeal have also held that the constitutional right to equal
protection of the laws requires the section to be applied to
juveniles sentenced to the functional equivalent of life without
parole. (People v. Sorto (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 435, 440 [juvenile
sentenced to indeterminate 130 years to life plus determinate 10
years]; accord, People v. Heard (2022) 83 Cal.App.5th 608, 612
[juvenile sentenced to indeterminate 80 years to life plus
2 In so stating, the trial court appears to have relied on the
minute order from codefendant Dennis Canjura’s sentencing
hearing. In Caceres’s opening brief on appeal, his counsel relied
on the sentence imposed on Canjura. We directed appellant’s
counsel to obtain a minute order or other document showing the
sentence imposed on his client, Caceres. We have supplemented
the record with those documents.
3 Those records are not in the record on appeal.
3
determinate 23 years].) Caceres was sentenced to 25 years to life
plus one year and to a consecutive life term. He was therefore
neither sentenced to explicit life without parole nor to its
functional equivalent. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in
denying Caceres’s petition for resentencing.
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL
REPORTS
EDMON, P. J.
We concur:
EGERTON, J.
ADAMS, J.
4