People v. Pennix CA2/7

Filed 2/13/25 P. v. Pennix CA2/7 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SEVEN

THE PEOPLE, B336054

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. NA024234) v.

LADERO PENNIX,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Judith L. Meyer, Judge. Reversed and remanded with directions. Crystal A. Morgan 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 Steven E. Mercer, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

______________

Ladero Pennix appeals from an order denying his petition for recall and resentencing under Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (d)(1) (section 1170(d)(1)).1 In 1995 Pennix was convicted of crimes he committed when he was 16 years old, including multiple murders, attempted murder, and robberies. He was sentenced to four life terms plus a determinate term of 74 years in state prison. Section 1170(d)(1) allows juvenile offenders to petition for recall and resentencing after 15 years of incarceration if they were sentenced to life without the possibility of parole (LWOP). Pennix argued in his petition that his sentence of more than 74 years to life was the functional equivalent of an LWOP sentence under People v. Heard (2022) 83 Cal.App.5th 608 (Heard), and therefore he was entitled to resentencing relief to avoid an equal protection violation. The superior court denied Pennix’s petition but not based on section 1170(d)(1). Instead, the superior court denied the petition without a hearing, erroneously believing that Pennix was seeking relief under former section 1170, subdivision (d)(1), now codified as section 1172.1. Under that section, an inmate is only eligible for relief upon a recommendation from the Secretary of the Board of Parole Hearings or other specified entities. Pennix contends, the People concede, and we agree the superior court erred in denying Pennix’s petition based on the wrong Penal Code provision. We reverse the order and remand for the superior court to consider Pennix’s petition for recall and resentencing under current section 1170(d)(1) in light of Heard and recent equal protection decisions.