Judge Rules Minors Can Get Life and No Parole : Prop. 115: The decision comes down in connection with the trial of a teen-ager in two Saticoy drive-by killings.

A key provision of the so-called “victims rights” initiative approved by voters last year--one that allows minors to be sentenced to life in prison without possibility of parole--was upheld Friday by a Ventura County Superior Court judge.

Judge Frederick A. Jones ruled that there is no conflict between Proposition 115--which contained the no-parole provision for certain murders committed by minors--and Proposition 114, which did not change the penalties for murder.

Attorneys said the ruling is the first in California on the no-parole issue since voters approved both initiatives in June, 1990.

If Jones’ ruling is upheld on appeal, 16-year-old Vincent Medrano of Ventura, accused of two killings in a drive-by shooting, faces a possible life sentence without parole if he is convicted.

Medrano was scheduled to go on trial Monday, but Jones granted a week’s delay while defense attorney James Matthew Farley asks the 2nd District Court of Appeal in Ventura to hear the case.

Proposition 115, supported by the state’s district attorneys, was a sweeping measure that changed jury selection procedures, permitted greater use of grand juries in criminal proceedings, allowed hearsay testimony in preliminary hearings and changed the death-penalty law. It received a yes vote from 57% of the voters.

Proposition 114 was a much narrower measure, addressing only one section of the Penal Code. The initiative dealt strictly with the “special circumstance” allegations that can result in the death penalty, such as killing a witness, a judge or a peace officer. Specifically, the measure broadened the definition of peace officer. It was approved by 71% of the voters.

Before the ruling, Farley argued that Proposition 114, because it contained no provisions for life without parole for minors, rules out that penalty.

“The voters spoke,” Farley said. “The voters said no life without parole for minors. The absence of it in one measure conflicts with the presence of it in another.”

But Jones sided with Ventura County Deputy Dist. Atty. Kevin G. DeNoce, who said there was no conflict. DeNoce also pointed to a California Supreme Court ruling that he said requires courts to reconcile, to the extent possible, competing measures when both win voter approval.

“If the court can give effect to some provisions of 115, it must do so,” DeNoce said.

Jones’ ruling, if upheld on appeal, will affect not only Medrano, but also Edward (Tony) Throop, who is on trial for the same slayings.

Throop, Medrano and two other teen-agers each were accused of two counts of murder, two counts of attempted murder, and conspiracy in the April 7 drive-by slayings of two Saticoy men--Javier Ramirez, 18, and Rolando Martinez, 20. The defendants also were charged with a “special circumstance” allegation that more than one person was killed.

A 15-year-old boy, Joseph Scholle, has been convicted in the case and sentenced to the California Youth Authority, which cannot hold him past his 25th birthday.

Carlos Vargas, 16, pleaded guilty and agreed to testify against the others. In exchange, prosecutors agreed to drop the special circumstance allegation against him.