People v. Scott CA2/8

Filed 9/3/24 P. v. Scott CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT

THE PEOPLE, B329373

Plaintiff and Respondent, Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA448436 v.

MARQUS SCOTT,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Lisa B. Lench, 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, Zee Rodriguez and Michael C. Keller, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. _______________________

At a resentencing hearing, Marqus Scott requested the court conduct a hearing pursuant to People v. Franklin (2016) 63 Cal.4th 261 (Franklin) to preserve evidence for his future youth offender parole hearing. The court denied the request on the ground that Scott was statutorily ineligible for youth offender parole, and Scott appeals. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Scott was born in September 1996. At age 17, Scott committed second degree robbery (Pen. Code,1 §211); the juvenile court later declared Scott a ward of the court pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602. As described in the opinion in Scott’s prior appeal,2 on March 14, 2016, Scott, age 19, participated in a drive-by shooting that killed Bradford Smith. (People v. Scott (Mar. 2, 2022, B301478) [nonpub. opn.]) In February 2016 and July 2016 police discovered Scott was in possession of a firearm. (Ibid.) Scott was convicted of special circumstances murder (§§ 187, subd. (a); 190.2, subd. (a)(21), (22)) and two counts of unlawful firearm activity (§ 29820, subd. (b)). (Scott, supra, B301478.) The trial court found Scott was subject to the enhanced sentencing provisions of the “Three Strikes” law (§§ 667, subds. (b)–(j), 1170.12, subds. (a)–(d)) because his juvenile adjudication