People v. Tate CA2/4

Filed 7/23/24 P. v. Tate CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

THE PEOPLE, B332620 (Los Angeles County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. A645237)

v.

CHRISTOPHER TATE,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Connie R. Quinones, Judge. Affirmed. Richard L. Fitzer, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant Attorney General, Stephanie A. Miyoshi, Deputy Attorney General, and Noah P. Hill, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

INTRODUCTION Appellant Christopher Tate (Tate) appeals from an order denying his motion for a hearing under Penal Code section 1203.011 and People v. Franklin (2016) 63 Cal.4th 261 (Franklin). After Tate submitted his opening brief, the California Supreme Court decided People v. Hardin (2024) 15 Cal.5th 834 (Hardin). That decision controls the outcome here. We affirm the trial court’s order.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Tate was convicted of first-degree murder with special circumstances in 1988. He was 19. He was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole. In November 2022, Tate filed a motion for a hearing under section 1203.01 and Franklin, seeking an opportunity to place information on the record for an eventual youth offender parole hearing. The trial court denied the motion, finding that Tate was not entitled to a youth offender parole hearing under section 3051. Tate timely appeals.

DISCUSSION Section 3051, subdivision (a)(1) provides that the Board of Parole Hearings (Board) must hold a hearing “for the purpose of reviewing the parole suitability of any prisoner who was 25 years of age or younger . . . at the time of the controlling offense.” At that hearing, the Board’s decision “will be informed by youth-related factors, such as his cognitive ability, character, and social and family background at the time of the offense.”