People v. Mills

Filed 9/9/25 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

THE PEOPLE, 2d Crim. No. B334998 (Super. Ct. No. 1331307) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Santa Barbara County)

v.

JACK MILLS,

Defendant and Appellant.

Jack Mills, a convicted “three striker,” wants to be eligible for “elderly parole.” The “short answer” is “no.” The Legislature has precluded this theoretical remedy and there is no good reason for the judiciary to allow such relief. Here, the trial court reduced a 110 years to life sentence down to 43 years to life. The trial court struck one of the two strikes previously found to be true. We are not called upon to rule on the striking of this strike. The People did not appeal from this ruling. If the trial court struck this “strike” to make him eligible for elderly parole, it should not have done so. (See discussion, post.) Because he is presently 67 years old, appellant contends that his “parole eligibility date is well after his natural life

expectancy.” The theory of reversal for reconsideration is the claim that the trial court erroneously thought that appellant would be eligible for “elderly parole” if just one strike was stricken. He says: “Had the court known [appellant] is ineligible for elderly parole [Pen. Code § 3055 subd. (g)] it is reasonably probable it would have sentenced him differently.” We do not agree with appellant’s reading of the record concerning the trial court’s alleged confusion regarding parole eligibility. Even if the prosecutor and defense counsel mistakenly believed that a “two striker” was eligible for elderly parole, that does not mean that the trial court was similarly mistaken. Its comments were prefaced by the phrase, “[i]f he’s eligible under elder parole . . . .” The key word here is “if.” Moreover, we disagree with the claim that it is “reasonably probable” that the court would have stricken the remaining strike. This is speculation. The Court of Appeal does not reverse orders based upon speculation. Generally speaking, we do not opine on the trial court’s reasoning, even if it is erroneous. We opine on its actual ruling. We also do not reverse where a theoretical trial court remedy would be unlawful. We need not restate appellant’s lengthy criminal history. The instant offense started as a home invasion robbery. During the course of the robbery, appellant attempted to kill J.A. with a firearm. He also assaulted two other people in the house with the firearm. It is only luck that J.A. survived being shot in the head at close range. He has life-long disabilities as a result of the attempted murder. “But for [appellant’s] faulty marksmanship, we might be reviewing a first degree murder conviction.” (People v. Bradford (1976) 17 Cal.3d 8, 20.) Given appellant’s criminal history and the horrific nature of the instant offenses, any further attempt to lessen the sentence