Cesar Santana v. California

Does California Create a Liberty Interest to "Youthful-Offender's" when it Enacted Legislation in Response/Remedy of a United States Supreme Court Decision (Miller v. Alabama, (2012) 132 S^Ct. 2254, 2496) whem the State Law removes the "juvenile" desigation recognizing the larger class as defined/decided in that Supreme Court Decision by the Medical/Psychological Professional as concluding upon completion of a youth's 25th year?

Does a State Habeas Corpus Petitioner make a Valid Constitutional challenge to the fact that there are no reasoned sentencing schematic which delineates the differ­ ences in culpability for those juvenile's/youthful-offender's tried uhder adult law when the enacted legislation (embracing Miller directly in its language) does not return the "youth-offender" to the sentencing court for consideration of an age appropriate sentecing consideration as the Miller Court instructed the State's must do, and giving broad Sentencing Court Discretion in age appropriate sentencing matters and not necessarily having to exact life sentences?