People v. Mitchell CA2/6

Filed 3/16/26 P. v. Mitchell CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. B344127 (Super. Ct. No. SM105565) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Santa Barbara County)

v.

GREGORY DEAN MITCHELL,

Defendant and Appellant.

Gregory Dean Mitchell appeals from the trial court’s order denying his motion for a youth offender parole hearing. (Pen. Code, §§ 1203.01, 3051.)1 He contends the denial of his motion was error because he has an equal protection right under the federal and California Constitutions to have a youth offender parole hearing, and thus a Franklin2 hearing or proceeding. We affirm.

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.

2 People v. Franklin (2016) 63 Cal.4th 261.

Factual and Procedural Background In 1997, appellant and three other men robbed the Vandenburg Federal Credit Union in Lompoc. All four men were armed. Moments after the robbery began, appellant shot security guard Octavio Gallardo in the leg. Christine Orciuch was walking toward the front door of the credit union when appellant shot Gallardo. Orciuch turned and ran toward her parked car where her 11-year old son was waiting. As she ran, appellant shot her in the back, killing her. In 1999, a jury convicted appellant of first degree murder (§ 187, subd. (a)), robbery (§ 211), burglary (§ 459), and assault with a firearm (§ 245, subd. (a)). The jury also found true the special circumstance allegations that the murder was committed during a robbery and a burglary. (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(17).) Appellant was sentenced to a determinate term of 38 years followed by life without the possibility of parole (LWOP). In 2001, we affirmed the judgment. (People v. Mitchell (Feb. 21, 2001, B136280) [nonpub. opn.].)3 In 2023, appellant filed a motion in propria persona requesting a hearing to preserve evidence for a possible youth offender parole hearing pursuant to section 3051. The trial court denied the motion because appellant was 18 years old at the time of the controlling offense, was sentenced to LWOP, and was therefore statutorily ineligible for a youth offender parole hearing. (Id., subds. (b)(4), (h).) In 2024, we affirmed the trial court’s order based on People v. Hardin (2024) 15 Cal.5th 834 (Hardin), which held that section 3051’s exclusion of youthful offenders sentenced to LWOP