People v. De La Cruz CA2/2

Filed 6/10/25 P. v. De La Cruz CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, B337540

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. v. No. A886353)

FREDERICO DE LA CRUZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Jacqueline H. Lewis, 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, Assistant Attorney General, Idan Ivri and Nikhil Cooper, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. ______________________________

Defendant and appellant Frederico De La Cruz was 20 years old in 1984 when he committed special circumstance murder. In 1987, he was convicted and sentenced to a prison term of life without the possibility of parole (LWOP). Thirty-five years later, in 2022, defendant filed a motion for an evidence preservation proceeding under People v. Franklin (2016) 63 Cal.4th 261 (Franklin) in anticipation of a future Penal Code section 30511 youth offender parole hearing. The trial court denied the motion, concluding that defendant was ineligible due to his LWOP sentence. On appeal from the denial of his motion, defendant argues that section 3051’s exclusion of young adult offenders sentenced to LWOP is unconstitutional. We affirm. BACKGROUND I. Conviction and Sentencing In 1987, defendant was convicted of first degree murder (§ 187, subd. (a)) with a true finding as to the special circumstance that he had been previously convicted of first degree murder (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(2)). The trial court sentenced defendant to LWOP. II. Motion for a Franklin Proceeding In September 2022, defendant filed a motion pursuant to section 1203.01, Franklin, supra, 63 Cal.4th 261, and In re Cook (2019) 7 Cal.5th 439 seeking an evidence preservation proceeding for use at a future section 3051 youth offender parole hearing. He argued that section 3051’s exclusion of 18-to-25-year-olds sentenced to LWOP violated the federal and state constitutional