People v. Diaz CA4/3

Filed 1/22/25 P. v. Diaz CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, G062975

v. (Super. Ct. No. 07CF0015)

JOSE ANTONIO DIAZ, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Jonathan S. Fish, Judge. Affirmed. David P. Lampkin, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney General, Daniel

Rogers, Matthew Mulford and Sharon L. Rhodes, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. * * * In 2007, defendant Jose Antonio Diaz was sentenced to prison for life without the possibility of parole (LWOP) for crimes he committed when 1 he was 20 years old. In 2023, he moved the trial court for a Franklin proceeding to preserve evidence for a future Penal Code section 3051 2 hearing. The court denied the motion on the ground Diaz was not a minor when he offended and, accordingly, was not eligible for relief under section 3051. On appeal, Diaz argues section 3051 violates equal protection by offering relief to persons incarcerated for crimes they committed between the ages of 18 and 25 whose sentences are so lengthy that they are unlikely to obtain a parole hearing in their lifetime (de facto LWOP), while excluding those incarcerated for crimes they committed between the ages of 18 and 25 who received a sentence of life imprisonment without parole (de jure LWOP). After Diaz filed his appeal and submitted his opening brief, his equal protection argument was rejected by the California Supreme Court. (People v. Hardin (2024) 15 Cal.5th 834 (Hardin).) Following Hardin, we affirm. FACTS In 2007, a jury found Diaz guilty of first degree murder and street terrorism. Diaz was 20 when he committed the crimes. The jury found true the special circumstances that the murder was committed by lying in wait and to further the activities of a criminal street gang. It also found true