P. v. Bolanos
Annotate this Case
Defendant was 22 years old when he committed various sex crimes for which he was sentenced to serve multiple life in prison without parole and multiple life in prison with parole terms. These sentences were based on the One Strike law. On an unrelated occasion, he stole a car and was convicted for its theft. On appeal, Defendant made several claims mostly related to sentencing. Primarily, he suggested the youthful offender parole scheme—which excludes people sentenced under the One Strike law, and people sentenced to life without parole for crimes committed as adults—violates equal protection. The People disputed any equal protection violation. Second, Defendant complained the court erred in pronouncing one of the life in prison with parole terms. The People concede, but the parties diverge on the appropriate remedy. Their disagreement centers on due process and notice. Third, Defendant contends the trial court should have stayed some of the One Strike sentences pursuant to section 654, which generally prohibits multiple punishments for a single act. The People disagree.
The Fifth Appellate district, in the published portion of the opinion, found against Defendant on three issues. In the unpublished portion, the court addressed his remaining contentions. Ultimately, the court reversed the car theft conviction for insufficient evidence, directed the court to stay certain other sentences, and remanded for resentencing. The court affirmed the judgment, including the life without parole terms.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.