People v. Jones CA1/5

Filed 2/16/22 P. v. Jones CA1/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for pur- poses of rule 8.1115.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, A160721 v. TYRONE DAMION JONES, (San Mateo County Super. Ct. No. SC046788A) Defendant and Appellant.

In 2000, appellant Tyrone Damion Jones was convicted of multiple sexual and assaultive offenses committed when he was 22 years old. He was sentenced to 240 years to life in state prison after allegations under the Three Strikes law and various enhancements and allegations were found true. (Pen. Code, §§ 664/261, subd. (a)(2), 289, subd. (a)(1), former 288a, subd. (c)(2), 261, subd. (a)(2), 245, subd. (a)(1), 422, 12022.8, 667, subd. (a), 667.61, 1170.12, subd. (c)(2).)1 In the appeal from the original judgment, we remanded the case for correction of a single sentencing error—imposition of one serious felony prior instead of two—but otherwise affirmed.

1 Further statutory references are to the Penal Code. 1

After the law regarding the parole of youthful offenders changed, appellant filed a postjudgment motion under section 1203.01 seeking to develop a record of mitigating circumstances for an eventual youthful offender parole hearing in accordance with People v. Franklin (2016) 63 Cal.4th 261 (Franklin).2 (See § 3051.) The court denied the motion. We affirm. We conclude appellant was not entitled to a Franklin hearing because he was sentenced under the Three Strikes law and he is not eligible for a youthful offender parole hearing. (§ 3051, subd. (h).) Following the decisions in People v. Wilkes (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 1159, 1165–1167, review denied Jul. 15, 2020 (Wilkes) and People v. Moore (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 856, 861–864, review denied Dec. 1, 2021 (Moore), we reject his argument that section 3051 violates equal protection principles in exempting youthful offenders convicted under the Three Strikes law from its provisions. I. DISCUSSION “In response to a series of decisions addressing Eighth Amendment limits on juvenile sentencing (see, e.g., Miller v. Alabama (2012) 567 U.S. 460[]; Graham v. Florida (2010) 560 U.S. 48, 75[]), the Legislature enacted section 3051. (Sen. Bill No. 260 (2013–2014 Reg. Sess.), Stats. 2013, ch. 312, §§ 1, 4; In re Trejo (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 972, 980–981[].) In its current form,