People v. Sands CA1/5

Filed 3/11/26 P. v. Sands CA1/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for pur- poses of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A173582 v. PHILIP LEO SANDS, (San Francisco City & County Defendant and Appellant. Super. Ct. Nos. CRI-02131939, SCN184929, SCN195209)

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

Philip Leo Sands was 24 years old when he committed, among other crimes, first degree murder to prevent a witness to a crime from testifying (Pen. Code, §§ 187, subd. (a), 190.2, subd. (a)(10)).2 In 2005, he was sentenced to a prison term of life without the possibility of parole for special circumstance murder. A different panel of this division affirmed the judgment on direct appeal. (People v. Sands (Oct. 31, 2008, A112684) [nonpub. opn.].)

In 2020, Sands filed a postjudgment motion in the superior court, seeking to develop a record of mitigating circumstances for

We resolve this appeal by a memorandum opinion 1

pursuant to California Standards of Judicial Administration, standard 8.1, and the First Appellate District Local Rules, rule 19. 2 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

an eventual youth offender parole hearing (see §§ 1203.01, 3051; People v. Franklin (2016) 63 Cal.4th 261 (Franklin)). The trial court denied that motion, explaining that Sands was statutorily ineligible (§ 3051, subds. (b)(4), (h)) because he was over the age of 18 when he committed a crime for which he was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole. In People v. Sands (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 193, 197 (Sands II), this Division rejected Sands’s equal protection argument and affirmed the trial court’s order.3 A few years later, our Supreme Court held that section 3051’s exclusion of youth life-without-parole offenders does not violate equal protection, “either on its face or as applied to [those] serving life without parole sentences for special circumstance murder” generally. (People v. Hardin (2024) 15 Cal.5th 834, 839 (Hardin).)