A 16-year-old California boy who admitted killing his parents and attacking his younger sister will serve six years in juvenile custody, a sentence that complies with state law yet leaves open questions about transparency, public safety, and how the system handles severe violence by children.
TLDR
A Fresno County juvenile court sentenced a Miramonte teenager to six years in custody for murdering his parents and attempting to kill his 11-year-old sister. Because he was 14 at the time of the December 27th, 2023, attack, California law required that he be tried as a juvenile, capping his confinement below adult penalties.
A Family Killing In California’s Central Valley
The case centers on a family in Miramonte, a small community in California’s Central Valley. According to Law&Crime, the teenager, whose name has not been released because of his age, was convicted in juvenile court of murdering his parents, 37-year-old Lue Yang and 37-year-old Se Vang, and of attempting to murder his then-11-year-old sister inside the family home.
A younger brother, who was 7 years old at the time, was found unharmed in the home, according to the same reporting. Authorities have not publicly described what, if anything, the younger child witnessed or heard.
The killings took place on December 27th, 2023. Law&Crime, citing local ABC affiliate KFSN, reported that the boy was 14 years old at the time. That detail, more than any other, would shape the legal path of the case and ultimately the length of his confinement.
From Intruder Story to Confession
In the immediate aftermath, investigators were told a different story. According to KFSN reporting recounted by Law&Crime, the teenager called 911 and claimed that an intruder had broken into the home and carried out the attack.
Fresno County Sheriff John Zanoni later told reporters that the boy’s account was not true. In a press conference shortly after the killings, Zanoni said the teen “fabricated” the intruder story he gave during the emergency call and used “multiple weapons to attack his mom, his dad, and his sister.” The sheriff did not specify the weapons in that public briefing.
Roughly a week after the crime, the teen admitted to law enforcement that he had made the story up and had committed the violence himself, according to the Law&Crime summary of KFSN’s coverage. Authorities have not publicly released a detailed narrative of how the attack unfolded inside the house.
Nor have investigators or prosecutors disclosed a motive. In the press conference described by Law&Crime, Sheriff Zanoni said only that the motive for the killings was not being made public. That decision, coupled with the closed nature of juvenile proceedings, has left significant gaps in the public record about why this family was torn apart.
Juvenile Law Shapes a Rare Sentence
Because the defendant was 14 years old at the time of the crime, California law required that he be prosecuted in the juvenile system. According to Law&Crime, the Fresno County District Attorney’s Office tried the case in juvenile court, which keeps many records and hearings sealed.
Under California statutes, youths under 16 cannot be transferred to adult criminal court, even for homicide. This rule, shaped in part by reforms in recent years, reflects the state’s view that very young offenders should remain in a system focused on rehabilitation, education, and treatment, rather than adult punishment.
That legal threshold meant the teenager faced a dramatically different sentencing range than an adult convicted of the same conduct. Law&Crime reported that the maximum time he could serve in juvenile custody for these offenses was seven years. The judge imposed a six-year term, which will keep him in custody until he is 22 years old.
By contrast, an adult convicted of murdering two people and attempting to kill a child could face decades in prison or life without parole. The disparity embodies a core tension in juvenile justice: whether and when the capacity for change should outweigh the severity of the harm.
Because juvenile facilities and programs are designed for education and treatment, not long-term incapacitation, the system generally sets finite end dates for confinement. The tradeoff, in cases like this, is that the community will see a person convicted of multiple killings return home while still relatively young.
A Sealed Courtroom and Limited Public View
The proceeding itself unfolded largely out of public view. Law&Crime reported that, because the case remained in juvenile court, many case records are sealed, and specific details about hearings and evaluations are not publicly available.
Juvenile confidentiality rules are meant to protect minors from lasting stigma and to encourage rehabilitation. In a routine delinquency case, that protection can help a teenager move past a mistake. In a double murder case, the same rules sharply limit public oversight of how the system responds to life-taking violence.
According to Law&Crime’s account of the sentencing hearing, KFSN reporters were present in the courtroom. Even so, they were not able to publish the defendant’s name. Key documents, such as psychological evaluations, risk assessments, and any treatment plans, remain unavailable to the public.
Those constraints mean the community must take it largely on trust that juvenile authorities will provide intensive services, monitor the boy’s progress, and make informed decisions about his eventual release. They also mean that the reasoning behind the six-year decision, short of the seven-year maximum, is not laid out in a public written order that can be scrutinized.
Classroom Praise in a Murder Sentencing
One of the only detailed glimpses into the hearing came from a teacher who spoke in court. According to Law&Crime’s reporting on KFSN’s coverage, the teacher described the teen as a “straight-A student” and told the judge, “I really like the kid.” The comment underscored that, in at least some settings, he had been seen as diligent and likable.
Educational performance often plays a role in juvenile court decisions. Judges and probation officers look for signs that a youth can follow rules, engage in school, and respond to structure. A record of academic success can support arguments that a teenager is capable of rehabilitation if given counseling, supervision, and time.
At the same time, the teacher’s statement sits uneasily alongside the violence described by law enforcement. A teenager regarded in class as hardworking and personable has admitted to killing both parents and trying to kill his younger sister. That contrast raises questions that the sealed record does not answer: what changed in the home, what warning signs were present, and how those signs were interpreted by adults around him.
Surviving Siblings and Long-Term Impact
The two surviving children, the injured 11-year-old and her younger brother, are now orphans. Law&Crime reported that relatives created an online fundraising campaign to help support them after the killings, and that the fund remains active.
The juvenile sentence focuses on the offender’s rehabilitation, but the surviving siblings face their own long-term consequences. Their medical, psychological, and financial needs are largely addressed outside the courtroom, through family support, social services, and community donations.
Because juvenile proceedings are confidential, there is little public information about whether the children’s views were presented at sentencing, how victim impact was weighed, or what protections are in place as they grow up. Those questions are common in serious juvenile cases, where the law balances a young offender’s privacy against the rights and needs of victims.
Accountability, Rehabilitation, and Unanswered Questions
Cases like this one sit at the fault line between two competing ideas of justice for children who commit severe crimes. On one side is a system built on the premise that adolescents are still developing, impulsive, and capable of profound change. On the other is the reality of irreversible harm to victims and families, and the community’s expectation of accountability.
Here, the legal framework largely dictated the outcome. Because the boy was 14, he could not be tried as an adult. Because he remained in juvenile court, his maximum confinement was limited to seven years, and the judge chose six. Those parameters, rather than an open-ended assessment of punishment and risk, set the boundaries of what was possible.
What happens inside those six years is largely invisible to the public. The content of any counseling, education, or treatment programs, the results of risk assessments, and the specific conditions of any later community supervision are not publicly known. The same confidentiality that shields the teen’s identity also obscures the system’s performance.
When the teenager is released around age 22, he will leave custody far sooner than an adult with equivalent convictions. Whether the time in juvenile custody will have been enough, and whether the surviving siblings’ needs will have been met, are questions that California’s laws do not require the system to answer in public.
