People v. Vue CA3

Filed 3/22/24 P. v. Vue CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

THE PEOPLE, C098061

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 05F10435)

v.

BEE VUE,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Bee Vue appeals from an order denying his motion for a proceeding to preserve youth-related mitigating evidence for a future youth offender parole hearing under Penal Code section 3051.1 Vue acknowledges he is statutorily ineligible for a youth offender parole hearing under section 3051 because he was sentenced to life without parole (LWOP) for a special circumstance murder he committed when he was 20

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

years old. But he argues that the exclusion of young adult LWOP offenders from the youth offender parole process violates equal protection. In accordance with the California Supreme Court’s recent decision in People v. Hardin (Mar. 4. 2024, S277487) ___ Cal.5th ___ [2024 Cal. Lexis 1076] (Hardin), we reject Vue’s equal protection challenge and affirm. BACKGROUND In 2007, a jury found Vue guilty of first degree murder (§§ 187, subd. (a), 189) and found true the special circumstance that the murder was committed during the commission of attempted robbery (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(17)) and that Vue personally and intentionally discharged a firearm causing death (§ 12022.53, subd. (d)). The trial court sentenced Vue to a term of LWOP for the murder plus 25 years to life for the firearm enhancement, to run consecutively. We affirmed the judgment in an unpublished opinion in People v. Vue (Sept. 30, 2008, C055534). Vue was 20 years old when he committed the offense. In 2023, Vue moved for a proceeding under People v. Franklin (2016) 63 Cal.4th 261 to preserve mitigating evidence for use in a future youth offender parole hearing. The trial court denied the motion. Vue timely appealed, filing a notice of appeal with this court in March 2023. His opening brief was filed in September 2023, and this case was fully briefed on December 6, 2023. DISCUSSION Offenders who are eligible for a youth offender parole hearing are entitled to make a record of youth-related mitigating evidence so that the parole board may, in the future, properly discharge its obligation to determine whether the offender is fit to rejoin society. (People v. Franklin, supra, 63 Cal.4th at pp. 268-269, 284; In re Cook (2019) 7 Cal.5th 439, 446-447; People v. Benzler (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 743, 748-749.) Section 3051 sets forth the eligibility criteria for youth offender parole hearings. Under that provision, most persons convicted of a controlling offense committed before the age of 26 are now