People v. Stewart CA2/1

Filed 7/29/24 P. v. Stewart CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

THE PEOPLE, B330762

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. A037377) v.

DENNIS LEONARD STEWART,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Judith L. Meyer, Judge. Affirmed. William L. Heyman, 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, Noah P. Hill and Nima Razfar, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. __________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 In 1989, following trial, a jury convicted defendant Dennis Leonard Stewart of special circumstances murder (Pen. Code,2 §§ 187, subd. (a), 190.2, subd. (a)(17)), premeditated attempted murder (§§ 187, subd. (a), 664), and residential robbery (§ 211). The trial court sentenced him to life without the possibility of parole (LWOP). After a direct appeal, we affirmed his conviction and sentence. (People v. Brookins et al. (Jan. 26, 1994, B056728) [nonpub. opn.].) In 2022, Stewart filed a motion requesting a hearing pursuant to People v. Franklin (2016) 63 Cal.4th 261 to preserve evidence in anticipation of a future youthful offender3 parole hearing under section 3051. Stewart asserted he was 24 years old at the time of his offenses. The court denied the motion, finding Stewart ineligible for such a hearing due to his LWOP sentence. Stewart now appeals, contending the court erroneously denied his Franklin motion because section 3051 violates two constitutional principles: the guarantee of equal protection, and the prohibition against cruel and/or unusual punishment. Stewart’s equal protection argument has two facets. The first is that section 3051 denies equal protection because there is