People v. Meraz CA2/6

Filed 10/30/25 P. v. Meraz CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIX

THE PEOPLE, 2d Crim. No. B341539 (Super. Ct. No. 2009013585) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Ventura County)

v.

VICTOR MERAZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

The trial court denied Victor Meraz’s petition for resentencing under Penal Code1 section 1170, subdivision (d) because his original sentence of life without the possibility of parole (LWOP) had been modified to 50 years to life and he would be eligible for parole in 2033 under section 3051. We affirm. FACTS When Meraz was 16 years old, he shot and killed a member of a rival criminal street gang. A jury convicted him of first degree murder with gun and gang enhancements. In 2011, he

1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code.

was sentenced to LWOP. We remanded for the trial court to reconsider Meraz’s sentence under Miller v. Alabama (2012) 567 U.S. 460. (People v. Meraz (Jan. 22, 2013, B235143) [nonpub. opn.].) Miller holds that the Eighth Amendment prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment requires sentencing courts to weigh specific factors relating to a juvenile defendant’s youth and maturity prior to imposing LWOP for homicide. (Miller, at pp. 473-474.) On remand, the trial court sentenced Meraz to 25 years to life for first degree murder and a consecutive 25 years to life for the gun enhancement for a total of 50 years to life. The additional enhancements were dismissed. In 2024, Meraz petitioned for resentencing under section 1170, subdivision (d)(1), allowing resentencing of juvenile offenders who were sentenced to LWOP when certain conditions are met, including having served at least 15 years. The trial court denied relief without a hearing on the grounds that 50 years to life is not a de facto LWOP sentence and that Meraz would be eligible for parole in 2033 under section 3051. DISCUSSON Section 1170, subdivision (d)(1)(A) provides: “When a defendant who was under 18 years of age at the time of the commission of the offense for which the defendant was sentenced to imprisonment for life without the possibility of parole has been incarcerated for at least 15 years, the defendant may submit to the sentencing court a petition for recall and resentencing.” In People v. Lopez (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 649 (Lopez), the defendant was under 18 years old when he committed aggravated kidnapping and was sentenced to LWOP. The sentence was later reduced to simple life pursuant to Graham v. Florida (2010) 560 U.S. 48, 82, holding that the Eighth Amendment bars LWOP