People v. Barry CA2/1

Filed 2/24/26 P. v. Barry CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

THE PEOPLE, B345512

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. TA083608) v.

DANIEL KEVIN BARRY,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, John J. Lonergan, Judge. Affirmed. Juvenile Innocence and Fair Sentencing Clinic, Christopher Hawthorne, Gabrielle Trujillo, and Grady Smith for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant Attorney General, Noah P. Hill and Steven E. Mercer, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. __________________________________

After appellant Daniel Kevin Barry pled no contest to murder—a crime he committed when he was 16 years old—the court sentenced him to a total of 45 years to life in prison. Seventeen years later, Barry petitioned the superior court to recall his sentence pursuant to Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (d)(1)(A) (section 1170(d)(1)(A)), arguing he was entitled to relief under that section because his sentence was the functional equivalent of life without the possibility of parole (LWOP).1 The court denied his petition, finding his sentence was not the functional equivalent of LWOP. Although by its plain language, section 1170(d)(1)(A) applies only to defendants sentenced to LWOP, People v. Heard (2022) 83 Cal.App.5th 608 (Heard) held that the guarantees of equal protection would be violated if the statute’s benefits were not extended to defendants sentenced to the functional equivalent of LWOP. On appeal, Barry argues that, in People v. Contreras (2018) 4 Cal.5th 349 (Contreras), our Supreme Court held that sentences of 50 years and 58 years to life imposed on a juvenile offender were the functional equivalents of LWOP, and Barry’s sentence of 45 years to life suffers from the same infirmities as those considered in Contreras. Therefore, Barry contends he has also been sentenced to the functional equivalent of LWOP, meaning the court erred under Heard in denying his petition. Even were we to assume the Legislature violated the guarantees of equal protection by not extending the benefits of section 1170(d)(1)(A) to those sentenced to the functional equivalent of LWOP, and even were we to find Barry’s initial