People v. Castro CA2/2

Filed 12/23/25 P. v. Castro CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, B341599

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA189633) v.

JOSEPH MICHAEL CASTRO, JR.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Jacqueline H. Lewis, Judge. Affirmed. William L. Heyman, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Kenneth C. Byrne and Allison H. Chung, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. ________________________________

Joseph Michael Castro, Jr. appeals from an order of the superior court denying a hearing under People v. Franklin (2016) 63 Cal.4th 261 (Franklin) that appellant sought as potentially relevant to a later youth offender parole hearing under Penal Code section 3051.1 The superior court denied appellant’s motion on the basis that he was statutorily ineligible for a youth offender parole hearing because he was 19 years old when he committed special circumstance murder and was sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole (LWOP). Appellant argues that section 3051 violates equal protection by excluding young adult offenders sentenced to LWOP from such parole hearings, and that the prohibition constitutes cruel or unusual punishment. We reject these contentions and affirm the trial court’s order. BACKGROUND Appellant, a gang member, conspired with fellow gang members to kill Jaime Castillo, whom they believed was going to testify about murders and other crimes committed by the gang. In January 1998, appellant rode in a vehicle with Castillo and others to a remote location and shot Castillo in the back of the head, killing him. Appellant was found guilty by a jury of conspiracy to commit murder and first degree murder. The jury found true the special circumstance allegation that Castillo was a witness to a crime who was intentionally killed to prevent him from testifying, and found true the allegation that appellant was a principal in the murder and at least one principal intentionally and personally discharged a firearm that caused great bodily injury. This court affirmed appellant’s conviction on appeal but modified