Divided state Supreme Court upholds life sentence for young murderer

The state Supreme Court, in a 5-2 decision, ruled Monday that a man convicted of a special circumstance murder committed when he was 25 and sentenced to life without the possibility of parole is not eligible for early release.

The ruling reversed a decision by a 2nd District Court of Appeal panel that California’s youth offender parole statute – which allows the early release of young adults, except for individuals sentenced to life without parole – does not have a rational basis.

Justice Leondra R. Kruger, an appointee of Gov. Jerry Brown, ruled that the 2013 law -- in which the Legislature rejected parole for criminals convicted of multiple murders or murders during a rape, robbery, or as a gang member – does not violate the equal protection clauses of the U.S. and California constitutions.

“This conclusion does not turn on this court’s judgments about what constitutes sound sentencing policy,” she wrote. “It turns on the deference we owe to the policy choices made through the democratic process by the people of California and their elected representatives.”

The case, which concerned a 1989 murder by Tony Hardin during a robbery of a neighbor, Norma Barber, in her Rowland Heights apartment when he was 25, drew many amicus curiae briefs from prosecutors and defense attorneys across the state. People v. Hardin, 2024 DJDAR 1927 (Cal. S. Ct., filed Nov. 28, 2022).

Hardin, who is now 60, persuaded a 2nd District Court of Appeal panel in 2022 that Section 3051 of the statute violates equal protection because young adult offenders sentenced to life without parole are treated differently from other young adult offenders.

Other appellate courts disagreed, however, so the state Supreme Court took the case to resolve the matter.

Justices Goodwin H. Liu and Kelli M. Evans dissented from the decision, citing statistics that 76% of the offenders who were convicted at age 25 or below are Black or Latino. Hardin is Black.

“The LWOP exclusion offends the Legislature’s only express and articulated purpose of the youth offender parole eligibility scheme and lacks rationality,” wrote Evans, an appointee of Gov. Gavin Newsom. “The exclusion bears the taint of racial prejudice and perpetuates extreme racial disparities plaguing our juvenile and criminal justice systems.”

Kruger wrote that she understood the dissenters’ point but noted that the Legislature chose to expand opportunities for early parole consideration for many young adult offenders without being required to do so.

“As this court has repeatedly explained, the purpose of these rules is to ensure that courts act as courts, and allow for the development of policy through the democratic process without putting the Legislature to unwarranted all-or-nothing choices,” she added.

Heidi Rummel of the USC Post-Conviction Justice Project and Sara A. McDermott of Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP, who represented Hardin, could not be reached. Deputy Solicitor General Helen H. Hong and the attorney general’s office also could not be reached.