People v. Boyd CA2/4

Filed 8/19/24 P. v. Boyd CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, B328685

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. MA007943) v.

HARRY JACKSON BOYD JR.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Kathleen Blanchard, 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, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Scott A. Taryle, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, and Viet H. Nguyen, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND In 1997, a jury convicted defendant and appellant Harry Jackson Boyd Jr. of two special circumstance murders (Pen. Code, §§ 187, subd. (a), 190.2, subds. (a)(3) & (a)(17)),1 committed less than a month before defendant’s 26th birthday. The trial court sentenced defendant to two consecutive terms of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole (LWOP). In 2022, defendant filed a motion requesting a hearing to make a record of mitigating evidence for a future youth offender parole hearing. (See §§ 1203.01, 3051.)2 The court denied the motion, finding the relevant statute excluded individuals, such as defendant, serving LWOP sentences for murders they committed between the ages of 18 and 26.3 The court also rejected defendant’s equal protection claim based on the separate treatment of juvenile and non-juvenile, youthful offenders sentenced to LWOP. Defendant timely appealed. On appeal, defendant contends the trial court erred in denying his motion to make a youth offender parole hearing record. He argues section 3051 as amended violates his constitutional rights to equal protection and freedom from cruel or unusual punishment. We affirm.