People v. Caddell CA4/1

Filed 7/2/25 P. v. Caddell CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE, D085600

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. RIF130895)

CAYSON LAMONT CADDELL,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Riverside County, Joshlyn R. Pulliam, Judge. Reversed and remanded with instructions. Law Offices of Bess Stiffelman and Bess Stiffelman for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney General, Collette C. Cavalier, Joy Utomi, and Nora S. Weyl, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. Cayson Lamont Caddell appeals from an order denying his petition for resentencing. He claims he was sentenced to the functional equivalent of life without parole, which makes him eligible for resentencing under Penal Code

section 1170(d)(1). The People concede error. Resolving this matter by memorandum opinion (see generally People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847), we accept the People’s concession and reverse and remand with instructions. I. A jury convicted Caddell of first degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a); count 1), attempted murder (§§ 664, 187(a); counts 2 and 4), and participation in a criminal street gang (§ 186.22(a); count 3) for offenses committed in 2006 when he was 16 years old. For counts 1, 2, and 4, the jury found true certain firearm enhancements. (§ 12022.53(c), (d), & (e).) In 2010, the trial court sentenced Caddell to prison for a determinate sentence of 40 years plus an indeterminate sentence of 80 years to life. In 2023, Caddell petitioned the court for resentencing under section 1170(d)(1), which permits juvenile offenders sentenced to life without the possibility of parole to petition for recall and resentencing under certain circumstances, and People v. Heard (2022) 83 Cal.App.5th 608. The court denied the petition after determining, based on Caddell’s potential parole eligibility, he was not serving the functional equivalent of LWOP. (§ 3051.) II. Caddell argues he is eligible for section 1170(d)(1) relief because his sentence is the functional equivalent of LWOP, and excluding him from obtaining such relief violates his constitutional right of equal protection. The People concede, and we agree. Statutory interpretation and the application of undisputed facts to a statute are questions of law we review de novo. (People v. Salcido (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 1303, 1311.)