People v. Palafox CA5

── People v. Palafox CA5 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: April 27, 2026 Category: General Filed 4/24/26 P. v. Palafox CA5 Opinion following transfer from Supreme Court NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT THE PEOPLE, F087986 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. BF125737B) v. LUIS WILLIAM PALAFOX, OPINION Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. David Wolf, Judge. Kyle Gee, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters and Charles C. Ragland, Chief Assistant Attorneys General, Kimberley A. Donohue, Assistant Attorney General, Eric L. Christoffersen, Darren K. Indermill and Robert C. Nash, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-  INTRODUCTION In 2010, appellant and defendant Luis William Palafox (appellant) and codefendant Kyle Hoffman (Hoffman) were convicted after a jury trial of the first degree murders of Joseph and Dorothy Parrott, and three special circumstances were found true. The victims were killed by both sharp- and blunt-force injuries to their heads and necks. Both appellant and Hoffman were 16 years old when they committed the offenses. (People v. Palafox (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 68, 73 (Palafox).) They were each sentenced to two consecutive terms of life in prison without the possibility of parole (LWOP). In their joint direct appeal, this court affirmed the convictions and remanded for resentencing pursuant to Miller v. Alabama (2012) 567 U.S. 460, 465 (Miller). After remand, the trial court again sentenced both appellant and Hoffman to two consecutive LWOP terms, and this court affirmed the trial court’s resentencing decision. (Palafox, supra, 231 Cal.App.4th at p. 73.) In 2024, appellant, acting in propria persona, filed a petition for recall and resentencing pursuant to Penal Code1 section 1170, subdivision (d), which states in relevant part that “[w]hen 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,” if the defendant meets additional statutory requirements. (§ 1170, subd. (d)(1)(A).) For recall eligibility, the trial court also must find by a preponderance of the evidence (§ 1170, subd. (d)(5)) that the defendant met his burden to establish one of four circumstances stated in section 1170, subdivision (d)(2)(A)–(D). If the defendant meets his burden to prove the eligibility criteria, the court shall recall the LWOP sentence and conduct a hearing “to resentence the defendant in the same 1 All further statutory citations are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated. 2. manner as if the defendant had not previously been sentenced, provided that the new sentence, if any, is not greater than the initial sentence.” (§ 1170, subd. (d)(5).) Section 1170, subdivision (d) states several factors the court “may” consider when exercising its discretion whether to impose a l