Larry Millete, 44, was convicted of first-degree murder on Thursday, July 9, 2026, for the killing of his wife, May ‘Maya’ Millete, who vanished more than five years ago. This verdict, delivered by a Chula Vista jury after approximately six weeks of testimony and less than a day of deliberation, marks a significant milestone for Maya’s family, who have sought justice since her disappearance on January 7, 2021.

Despite the conviction, the legal journey for Millete, and the quest for closure for Maya’s loved ones, is far from over. His sentencing, which carries a potential term of 25 years to life in state prison, has been postponed. This delay is due to an unresolved second criminal charge for possession of an unregistered assault weapon, which will be addressed in a separate trial.

First-Degree Murder Conviction Details

The Chula Vista jury found Larry Millete guilty of first-degree murder, concluding a trial that presented extensive circumstantial evidence. Prosecutors, led by Deputy District Attorney Christy Bowles, argued that Millete killed his wife in their home because she was seeking a divorce, subsequently disposing of her body on January 8, 2021, during a 12-hour period when his whereabouts were unaccounted for.

The prosecution’s case highlighted Millete’s possessive and controlling behavior, including tracking Maya’s movements, managing her finances, and soliciting spell casters to influence her. These requests evolved from wanting her to fall back in love to wishing her incapacitated, abruptly ceasing after her disappearance. Bowles contended that while the exact method of death could not be articulated, Millete was the only individual with the motive and means to commit the crime, and the lack of a body indicated premeditation.

Defense attorney Liann Sabatini countered by emphasizing the absence of a body, crime scene, murder weapon, or eyewitnesses, arguing that the jury was being asked to speculate. Sabatini suggested Millete’s behavior stemmed from his despair over Maya’s affair with a co-worker, portraying his actions as a ‘tragic investigation’ rather than stalking. She also dismissed the prosecution’s theory regarding poison hemlock, found in the home, as a potential murder weapon, suggesting it was either a child’s discovery or Millete’s own suicidal ideation.

The conviction, even without the recovery of Maya’s body, underscores the power of circumstantial evidence in securing a murder verdict. This outcome is a proof to the prosecution’s ability to construct a compelling narrative from indirect facts, a legal strategy sometimes seen in complex cases, such as when Thomas Stein was sentenced to life in prison for the deadly shooting of 15-year-old Kayla Rincon-Miller, where evidence was meticulously presented.

For Maya’s family, including her sister Maricris Drouaillet, the verdict brings a measure of justice but not full closure. Both Drouaillet and District Attorney Summer Stephan expressed gratitude for the jury’s decision, yet reiterated the ongoing hope that Maya’s body will eventually be found, allowing her family to lay her to rest with dignity.

The Unresolved Assault Weapon Charge and Bifurcation

The delay in Millete’s sentencing stems from a separate criminal charge: possession of an unregistered assault weapon. This charge was not presented during the murder trial because his defense attorneys successfully argued for its exclusion through a legal process known as bifurcation. Bifurcation allows different charges against the same defendant to be tried separately when one charge is deemed irrelevant or prejudicial to the other, ensuring a fair trial by preventing jurors from being swayed by unrelated evidence.

Chula Vista police detectives seized the unregistered assault weapon, along with other firearms, on May 7, 2021, when Millete was served with a gun violence restraining order. Prosecutors informed Judge Enrique Camarena that they intend to pursue this gun charge, despite the murder conviction. Millete has opted for a bench trial for this case, meaning testimony and evidence will be presented, but the judge, rather than a jury, will deliver the verdict.

A bench trial differs significantly from a jury trial, as the judge assumes the role of both fact-finder and interpreter of the law. This choice can sometimes be made by defendants who believe the legal technicalities of their case might be better understood by a judge than a lay jury, or to avoid the potentially lengthy and complex process of jury selection. The specifics of gun possession laws, particularly concerning unregistered assault weapons, can be intricate, as highlighted in cases where such weapons are seized.

The decision to proceed with a bench trial for the gun charge means Millete will again face legal proceedings before his ultimate sentencing for murder. This sequential approach ensures that all legal matters are resolved before the final punishment is determined, a process that can sometimes lead to further delays, as seen when attorneys request a new trial for Lasley before Friday sentencing.

Upcoming Status Hearing and Sentencing Timeline

The immediate next step in Larry Millete’s legal proceedings is a status hearing scheduled for July 20, 2026. This hearing will take place in a Chula Vista courtroom before Judge Enrique Camarena. During this session, attorneys for both the prosecution and the defense will work out the logistical details and scheduling for the upcoming bench trial concerning the unregistered assault weapon charge.

Until this second criminal trial is concluded, Millete’s sentencing for the first-degree murder conviction will remain pending. Sentencing hearings are often highly emotional events, providing an opportunity for victims’ loved ones to deliver victim impact statements directly to the convicted individual. These statements allow families to articulate the profound personal toll of the crime, contributing to the court record and sometimes influencing judicial decisions within established sentencing guidelines.

The resolution of the gun charge is a prerequisite for the murder sentencing. This means Maya’s family must continue to wait for the next legal milestone, prolonging their journey toward a final judicial outcome. The legal system’s methodical pace, while ensuring due process, often extends the period of uncertainty for those directly affected by violent crimes, a reality faced by many families seeking justice, including those following the prosecutors’ demand for an 8-year sentence for a loan shark.

Implications of a Conviction Without a Body

The conviction of Larry Millete for first-degree murder, despite Maya Millete’s body never being found, carries significant legal and societal implications. Legally, it reinforces the principle that a murder conviction can be secured through robust circumstantial evidence, even in the absence of a physical body, a crime scene, or a definitive murder weapon. Prosecutors meticulously built their case on Millete’s behavior, digital footprint, and the timeline of events surrounding Maya’s disappearance, demonstrating that a compelling narrative of guilt can be constructed from indirect facts.

This outcome serves as a powerful message that individuals cannot evade justice simply by successfully concealing a victim’s remains. It underscores the investigative capabilities of law enforcement and the judicial system’s capacity to adapt to complex cases where traditional evidence may be lacking. Such cases often present unique challenges for both the prosecution and defense, requiring extensive forensic analysis, digital evidence, and expert testimony to establish a chain of events and motive beyond a reasonable doubt. The precedent set by such convictions can influence future prosecutions in similar circumstances, where the deliberate concealment of a body is a key factor.

What is bifurcation in a criminal trial?

Bifurcation is a legal process where different issues or charges within a single case are separated and tried independently. In Larry Millete’s case, the murder charge and the unregistered assault weapon charge were bifurcated, meaning they were heard in separate trials. This typically occurs when one charge or set of evidence is deemed potentially prejudicial or irrelevant to the other, ensuring a fair trial by preventing the jury from being influenced by unrelated information.

What is a bench trial?

A bench trial, also known as a judge trial, is a legal proceeding where a judge, rather than a jury, hears the evidence and determines the facts and legal outcome of the case. In Millete’s upcoming trial for the unregistered assault weapon charge, he opted for a bench trial. This means the judge will decide whether he is guilty or not guilty, based on the testimony and evidence presented, without the involvement of a jury.

What is the potential sentence for first-degree murder in California?

In California, a conviction for first-degree murder typically carries a sentence of 25 years to life in state prison. This means the convicted individual must serve a minimum of 25 years before becoming eligible for parole. Larry Millete faces this sentencing range for his first-degree murder conviction, though the final determination will occur after his separate trial for the gun charge is resolved.

Conclusion

The conviction of Larry Millete for the first-degree murder of his wife, Maya Millete, represents a profound moment of accountability after years of uncertainty. While the verdict brings a measure of justice to Maya’s family, the legal process is not yet complete. The upcoming bench trial for the unregistered assault weapon charge and the subsequent sentencing hearing mean that the family’s emotional journey, marked by the continued absence of Maya’s body, will persist.

The resolution of these remaining legal steps is crucial for all parties involved. It will determine the full extent of Millete’s legal consequences and, for Maya’s family, offer a final judicial chapter in their enduring quest for peace and the hope of one day bringing her home.