People v. McCloud CA2/1

California Court of Appeal Feb 27, 2015 No. B251262Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that Penal Code section 3051 cures potential Eighth Amendment violations for juvenile offenders by providing a meaningful opportunity for parole, and it modified the defendant's sentence to reflect a 25-year parole eligibility date.

Issues

Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the defendant's assault convictions under the law of the case doctrine.
Whether the defendant's sentence constitutes cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment.
Whether the trial court erred by failing to consider Miller factors or order a new probation report at resentencing.
Whether the trial court erred by failing to state reasons for consecutive sentences.

Disposition. Affirmed, modified, and remanded with directions.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“In our view, Penal Code section 3051 as applied to McCloud’s sentence satisfies the constitutional mandates articulated in Graham, Miller, and Caballero.”

“Section 3051 thus provides McCloud with a meaningful opportunity to obtain release based on demonstrated growth and rehabilitation by affording him his first parole hearing well within his life expectancy.”

“Accordingly, out of an abundance of caution, we will modify his sentence to include a minimum parole eligibility date of 25 years.”

Filed 2/27/15 P. v. McCloud CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

THE PEOPLE, B251262 (Los Angeles County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. BA331910)

IZAC MCCLOUD,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Mark C. Kim, Judge. Affirmed, modified, and remanded with directions. ______ Chris R. Redburn, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Assistant Attorney General, Steven D. Matthews, Victoria B. Wilson, and Mark E. Weber, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. ______

Izac McCloud appeals following a resentencing on remand after a previous appeal. We modify his sentence in light of a recent statute concerning parole eligibility for juvenile offenders, and we direct the trial court to correct a clerical error in the abstract of judgment, but we otherwise affirm. BACKGROUND Our opinion in the previous appeal sets forth the factual and procedural background in detail (see People v. McCloud (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 788), and we need not repeat it here. The charges arise from the firing of 10 shots at a crowded party at which hundreds of people were present; two people were killed and a third was wounded. McCloud was convicted of two counts of second degree murder and 46 counts of assault with a firearm. (Id. at p. 792.) He was sentenced to 202 years to life in state prison. (Ibid.) On appeal, we affirmed McCloud’s murder convictions but reversed 38 of his 46 convictions for assault with a firearm. (McCloud, supra, 211 Cal.App.4th at p. 808.) We also vacated his sentence and remanded for further proceedings. (Ibid.) On remand, the trial court conducted a sentencing hearing, at which the prosecution elected to proceed with the assault charges on only counts 3, 10, 11, 12, 26, 36, 47, and 48. The court sentenced McCloud to 113 years and 4 months to life in state prison, calculated as follows: on count 1 (murder), 15 years to life, plus 25 years to life for the firearm enhancement; on count 2 (murder), 15 years to life, plus 25 years to life for the firearm enhancement; on count 3 (assault with a firearm), the high term of 4 years, plus 10 years for the firearm enhancement, plus 3 years for the great bodily injury enhancement; on counts 10, 11, 12, 26, 36, 47, and 48 (assault with a firearm), 1 year (one-third of the mid-term), plus 16 months (one-third of the mid-term) for the firearm enhancement; all sentences to run consecutively. The court dismissed the remaining counts. McCloud timely appealed.

People v. McCloud CA2/1

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

IZAC MCCLOUD,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

JOHNSON, J.

AI Brief