People v. Caballero, 282 P.3d 291 (Cal. 2012) Juvenile defendant (age 16 at time of crimes) was convicted of three counts of willful, deliberate, and premeditated attempted murder (with findings that he personally and intentionally discharged a firearm, inflicted great bodily injury upon a victim, and committed the crimes for the benefit of a criminal street gang). He was sentenced to a total effective term of 110 years to life. The Supreme Court of California held that a juvenile’s cumulative, discretionary sentence of 110 years to life on multiple non-homicide counts was equivalent to LWOP and prohibited under Graham. The Court held that the sentence contravenes Graham’s mandate against cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment. The Court reasoned: “Graham’s ‘flat ban’ on [LWOP] sentences applies to all non-homicide cases involving juvenile offenders, including the term-of-years sentence that amounts to the functional equivalent of [an LWOP] sentence imposed in this case. Defendant in the present matter will become parole eligible over 100 years from now . . . Consequently, he would have no opportunity to ‘demonstrate growth and maturity’ to try to secure his release, in contravention of Graham’s dictate . . . Graham’s analysis does not focus on the precise sentence meted out. Instead . . . it holds that a state must provide a juvenile offender ‘with some realistic opportunity to obtain release’ from prison during his or her expected lifetime.” (internal citations omitted). The Court stated:  “[S]entencing a juvenile offender for a non-homicide offense to a term of years with a parole eligibility date that falls outside the juvenile offender’s natural life expectancy constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Although proper authorities may later determine that youths should remain incarcerated for their natural lives, the state may not deprive them at sentencing of a meaningful opportunity to demonstrate their rehabilitation and fitness to reenter society in the future. Under Graham’s non-homicide ruling, the sentencing court must consider all mitigating circumstances attendant in the juvenile’s crime and life, including but not limited to his or her chronological age at the time of the crime, whether the juvenile offender was a direct perpetrator or an aider and abettor, and his or her physical and mental development, so that it can impose a time when the juvenile offender will be able to seek parole from the parole board. The Board of Parole Hearings will then determine whether the juvenile offender must be released from prison ‘based on demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation.’ Defendants who were sentenced for crimes they committed as juveniles who seek to modify [LWOP] or equivalent de facto sentences already imposed may file petitions for a writ of habeas corpus in the trial court in order to allow the court to weigh the mitigating evidence in determining the extent of incarceration required before parole hearings. Because every case will be different, we will not provide trial courts with a precise time frame for setting these future parole hearings in a nonhomicide case. However, the sentence must not violate the defendant’s Eighth Amendment rights and must provide him or her a ‘meaningful opportunity to obtain release based on demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation’ under Graham’s mandate.”  Reversed and remanded.