People v. Medrano CA2/6

Filed 8/20/25 P. v. Medrano CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIX

THE PEOPLE, 2d Crim. No. B340959 (Super. Ct. No. CR28216) Plaintiff and Appellant, (Ventura County)

v.

VINCENT MEDRANO,

Defendant and Respondent.

The People appeal an order granting the petition of Vincent Medrano (respondent) for recall and resentencing pursuant to Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (d)(1)(A) (section 1170(d)(1)(A)).1 The statute provides relief to juvenile offenders who were “sentenced to imprisonment for life without the possibility of parole” (LWOP). (Ibid.) Respondent does not qualify for relief under the statute because he was sentenced to imprisonment for 51 years to life with the possibility of parole.

1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code.

The trial court concluded that equal protection principles entitled respondent to relief because his 51-year-to-life sentence was the functional equivalent of LWOP when it was imposed in 1991. We disagree and reverse. Factual and Procedural Background In People v. Medrano (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 177, we affirmed the denial of respondent’s section 1172.6 petition. The following facts are taken from page 179 of that opinion: respondent and Carlos Vargas purchased a .22 caliber semi- automatic rifle. Respondent “scored” the “tip” of the rifle’s bullets in the belief that “the scoring would make the bullets more explosive.” As overt act No. 7 underlying the conspiracy charge, the jury found that respondent, Vargas, Edward Throop, and Joseph Scholle had “discussed among themselves committing a drive-by shooting.” Vargas drove them to Cabrillo Village in Ventura County. “Throop held the rifle and sat in the back seat next to [respondent].” Throop pointed the rifle out the window and fired multiple shots at a group of people attending a baptism party. As Vargas drove away, Scholle shouted the names of rival gangs. Two men attending the baptism party died of gunshot wounds. Two other men were shot but survived. In 1991 respondent was convicted of two counts of first degree murder with a multiple-death special-circumstances finding (§§ 187, 189, 190.2, subd. (a)(3)), two counts of attempted first degree murder (§§ 664/187, 189), and one count of conspiracy to commit first degree murder (§ 182). The jury found true allegations that a principal in the commission of the offenses had been armed with a firearm. (§ 12022, subd. (a)(1).) Respondent was sentenced to prison for 50 years to life plus one year for the firearm enhancement. In 1994 we affirmed the judgment in an