People v. Anchondo CA5

California Court of Appeal Jun 1, 2023 No. F084372Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a defendant sentenced to life without the possibility of parole (LWOP) is not entitled to a Franklin hearing because they are ineligible for a youth offender parole hearing, and this statutory distinction does not violate equal protection principles.

Issues

Whether the denial of a Franklin hearing to a defendant sentenced to LWOP violates equal protection principles.
Whether a rational basis exists for distinguishing between offenders sentenced to life with parole and those sentenced to LWOP regarding youth offender parole eligibility.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“A person who cannot prove eligibility for a youth offender parole hearing is not entitled to a Franklin hearing.”

“We conclude that the extreme level of culpability required for a LWOP sentence provides a rational basis for distinction between the two groups at issue.”

“Because defendant was not eligible for a youth offender parole hearing, denial of defendant’s request for a Franklin hearing was not error.”

Filed 6/1/23 P. v. Anchondo CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THE PEOPLE, F084372 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. VCF109724-03) v.

GABRIEL ANCHONDO, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Tulare County. Nathan G. Leedy, Judge. Robert L.S. Angres, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Galen N. Farris, Lewis A. Martinez and Louis M. Vasquez, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Levy, A.P.J., Franson, J. and DeSantos, J.

In 2004, defendant Gabriel Morales Anchondo was convicted by a jury of first degree murder with a gang special circumstance and a firearm enhancement.1 Defendant was 20 years of age at the time he committed the offense. He was sentenced to a total term of life without the possibility of parole (LWOP) plus 25 years to life. In 2022, defendant requested a hearing pursuant to People v. Franklin (2016) 63 Cal.4th 261 (Franklin), to create a record of the features of his youth that contributed to the commission of his offense for use at a possible youth offender parole hearing. The trial court denied the motion because defendant was sentenced to LWOP, rendering him ineligible for a youth offender parole hearing. Defendant argues that the denial of his request for a Franklin hearing based on his LWOP sentence constituted a violation of the equal protection of the law. The People disagree. We affirm. PROCEDURAL SUMMARY On April 1, 2004, the Tulare County District Attorney filed an amended information charging defendant with the murder of John Acevedo (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a);2 count 1). As to count 1, the information further alleged defendant committed the offense for the benefit of a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)), was an active member of a criminal street gang carrying out the offense to further gang activity (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(22)) (the special circumstance allegation), personally used a firearm (§ 12022.5, subd. (a)(1)), and personally discharged a firearm causing death (§ 12022.53, subd. (d)).

People v. Anchondo CA5

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief