Page 1
Inmate Won’t Get New Resentencing Hearing Aimed at Effecting ‘Elderly Release’—C.A.
By a MetNews Staff Writer
Div. Six of the Court of Appeal for this district declared yesterday that if a judge vacated a strike in order to render an inmate, 67, eligible for “elderly release,” she was mistaken as to the effect of her ruling and the legitimacy of the objective.
Justice Kenneth Yegan wrote:
“There is no authority which allows such a striking to achieve ‘elderly parole.’…Neither the trial court, nor an appellate court should attempt to make a ‘Three Strikes’ prisoner eligible for ‘elderly parole.’ Doing so here would work a radical exception to the ‘Three Strikes rule.’ This would be the antithesis of judicial restraint.”
The inmate is Jack Mills, a third-strike offender whose convictions for attempted murder, assault with a firearm and attempted robbery were affirmed by Div. Six in an unpublished opinion by Yegan on Sept. 19, 2013. With enhancements, the term was set at 110 years to life.
Inmate Resentenced
However, Santa Barbara Superior Court Judge Pauline Maxwell on Jan. 5, 2024, struck a strike and resentenced Mills to 43 years to life. The People did not appeal.
Mills did appeal, explaining that if Maxwell had realized that even with one strike eliminated he is still “ineligible for elderly parole.…it is reasonably probable” that she “would have sentenced him differently.”
Yegan responded in yesterday’s opinion:
“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.”
Criminal History
He commented:
“Given appellant’s criminal history and the horrific nature of the instant offenses, any further attempt to lessen the sentence is wishful thinking even if he is ‘elderly’ and even if he could be eligible for parole consideration in the future. Appellant does not fall outside the letter and spirit of the Three Strikes Law. He falls directly inside it.”
The justice noted, “Perhaps the trial court would consider striking another strike if we were to reverse,” but added:
“This is beside the point.”
The case is People v. Mills, 2025 S.O.S., B334998.
Copyright 2025, Metropolitan News Company