California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Isitt, 127 Cal.Rptr. 279, 55 Cal.App.3d 23 (Cal. App. 1976):
The invocation of section 1202b in the case of an otherwise qualified defendant is within the discretion of the sentencing court. (People v. Buggs (1969) 272 Cal.App.2d 285, 288, 77 Cal.Rptr. 450.) Defendant offers no reason why the trial court should have exercised its discretion to mitigate the sentences imposed other than that he was, at the time of the offense and of his apprehension, 17 years of age. Stripped of its asserted constitutional basis, defendant's contention is thus reduced to a categorical insistence that the amelioration of a sentence of life without parole is required in any case where the defendant so qualifies by reason of his age. Such a construction is, of course,
Page 285
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.