People v. Lara (79-Year Juvenile Sentence)
Was 17 when sentenced to 79 years to life — a de facto life sentence for a juvenile. Trial court granted resentencing petition. Appellate court recognized the legislature intended these juvenile sentences to be revisited.
What Happened
In 2007, Rodrigo Lara, then 17 years old, was tried as an adult in Ventura County for a series of violent crimes committed in 2006, including attempted murder and robbery. Despite his age and the well-documented science on adolescent brain development, prosecutors pursued a sentence that amounted to life without meaningful parole—a 79-years-to-life term. The trial court, presided over by Judge Bruce Young, imposed the sentence without adequately considering Lara’s youth, potential for rehabilitation, or the evolving standards of decency that recognize juveniles as less culpable than adults.
The case took a turn in 2018 when the California Legislature passed Senate Bill 1391, which prohibited the prosecution of 14- and 15-year-olds as adults and encouraged resentencing for juveniles given extreme sentences. Lara’s defense team filed a petition for resentencing under this new legal framework, arguing that his original sentence violated the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. The trial court granted the petition in 2020, acknowledging that the sentence was disproportionate and failed to account for Lara’s age at the time of the crimes. However, the Ventura County District Attorney’s Office, led by then-DA Gregory Totten, appealed the decision, seeking to uphold the original sentence.
Key Players
Timeline
Outcome
In 2022, the California Court of Appeal upheld the trial court’s decision to grant Rodrigo Lara’s petition for resentencing, marking a significant victory for juvenile justice reform in Ventura County. The appellate court recognized that the original 79-years-to-life sentence was disproportionate and failed to account for Lara’s age, potential for rehabilitation, and the evolving legal standards governing juvenile sentencing. The ruling affirmed the legislature’s intent in passing Senate Bill 1391 and other reforms aimed at correcting extreme sentences imposed on juveniles.
While the outcome was a step toward justice, the case underscored the resistance of prosecutors like Gregory Totten to embrace reform. Totten’s decision to appeal the resentencing—despite the clear legislative intent and constitutional principles at stake—highlighted a pattern of prosecutorial overreach in Ventura County. Lara’s case now serves as a precedent for other juveniles seeking resentencing under California’s evolving juvenile justice laws.
Why This Matters
The case of *People v. Lara* exposes the systemic failures of Ventura County’s criminal legal system to protect the rights of juveniles, particularly those from marginalized communities. The original 79-years-to-life sentence was not just extreme—it was a violation of the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment, as recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court in cases like *Miller v. Alabama* (2012) and *Montgomery v. Louisiana* (2016). These rulings established that juveniles must be treated differently from adults due to their diminished culpability and greater capacity for change.
Lara’s case also highlights the critical role of prosecutorial discretion in perpetuating injustice. District Attorney Gregory Totten’s decision to appeal the resentencing—despite the trial court’s recognition of the unconstitutionality of the original sentence—demonstrates how prosecutors often prioritize punitive outcomes over justice and rehabilitation. This case is a call to action for accountability in Ventura County and a reminder of the ongoing need for reform in how juveniles are treated in the criminal legal system.