People v. Vlasov CA3

Filed 07/19/24 P. v. Vlasov CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

THE PEOPLE, C099516

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 00F02479)

v.

MIKHAEL PAVLOVICH VLASOV,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Mikhael Pavlovich Vlasov is currently serving a life sentence without the possibility of parole for a special circumstance murder he committed at age 18. Defendant moved the trial court for a Franklin/Cook1 hearing to develop and preserve evidence for later use in a youth offender parole hearing under Penal Code section 3051. (Undesignated section references are to the Penal Code.) The trial court denied the

1 People v. Franklin (2016) 63 Cal.4th 261 (Franklin); In re Cook (2019) 7 Cal.5th 439 (Cook).

1

motion, finding that youth offender parole hearings are not available for people like defendant who are serving life sentences without the possibility of parole for crimes they committed after turning 18. Defendant appeals, arguing that section 3051 violates federal and state constitutional equal protection principles because it excludes young adult offenders sentenced to life without the possibility of parole from early parole eligibility. Our Supreme Court recently rejected this argument in People v. Hardin (2024) 15 Cal.5th 834 (Hardin), finding that section 3051 comports with equal protection. We are bound by that decision and affirm. BACKGROUND In 2005, a jury found defendant guilty of first degree special circumstance murder during the commission of an attempted robbery and attempted carjacking, among other offenses. Defendant was 18 when he committed the crimes. He was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole for the murder, plus 25 years to life for an attached firearm enhancement, and a determinate term of 27 years for the remaining offenses and enhancements. In May 2023, defendant filed a postjudgment motion to develop and preserve evidence for later use in a youth offender parole hearing under section 3051. (See Franklin, supra, 63 Cal.4th at pp. 283-284 [an offender who will later become eligible for a youth offender parole hearing is entitled to an interim court proceeding to develop and preserve evidence of youth-related characteristics and circumstances at the time of the offense]; Cook, supra, 7 Cal.5th at pp. 458-459 [an offender whose sentence is otherwise final may obtain a Franklin hearing by filing a postjudgment motion in superior court].) Defendant’s motion acknowledged that as an offender sentenced to life without parole for a crime committed as a young adult, he was not eligible for a youth offender parole hearing under existing law, but he asserted that his exclusion violated his rights to equal protection under the federal and state constitutions and the ban on cruel and unusual