People v. Prado CA2/2

Filed 5/8/25 P. v. Prado CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO THE PEOPLE, B337094

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA021216) v.

JAMES PRADO,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Thomas Rubinson, Judge. Affirmed. Nancy L. Tetreault, 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, Chung L. Mar and Scott A. Taryle, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. ____________________

James Prado appeals from the denial of his motion for a hearing under People v. Franklin (2016) 63 Cal.4th 261 (Franklin) to preserve evidence for a future youth offender parole hearing under Penal Code1 section 3051, even though he is ineligible for relief under that section because he was 20 years old when he committed the crime and was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole (LWOP). He argues that the statute’s denial of relief to young offenders sentenced to LWOP violates equal protection and constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. We reject these contentions and affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND I. Facts2 In the early morning of March 26, 1990, appellant demanded money from Biviano Muñoz. When Muñoz refused, appellant shot him in the leg, causing him to fall. After searching his pockets, appellant shot Muñoz in the head, killing him. Appellant was 20 years old at the time. A jury convicted him of first degree murder (§ 187) and attempted second degree robbery (§§ 667, 211), and found true the special circumstance that he committed the murder in the course of an attempted robbery (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(17)). Appellant was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole. His conviction was affirmed on direct appeal. (People v. Prado, supra, B085171.)