People v. Baca CA3

Filed 4/3/24 P. v. Baca CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (San Joaquin) ----

THE PEOPLE, C098052

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. Nos. STKCRFE19970006131, v. SC061757C)

LOUIS BACA,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Louis Baca was convicted of special-circumstance murder in 1997 and sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. He appeals from the trial court’s denial of his request, pursuant to People v. Franklin (2016) 63 Cal.4th 261 and In re Cook (2019) 7 Cal.5th 439, to hold a hearing to make a record of evidence relevant at an eventual youth offender parole hearing. The trial court ruled that Penal Code1

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

section 3051, subdivision (h) makes defendant ineligible for a youth offender parole hearing because he was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole and was not a juvenile at the time of the murder. As a result, the trial court denied defendant’s request for a Franklin hearing. On appeal, defendant contends section 3051, subdivision (h) violates: 1) provisions in the United States and California Constitutions that guarantee equal protection of the laws, and 2) the ban on cruel and unusual punishment in the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Our Supreme Court recently rejected one of defendant’s equal protection arguments. We will affirm. BACKGROUND In 1997, a jury found defendant guilty of first degree murder and the appropriate fact finder found true the special circumstance that defendant had perpetrated the murder by discharging a firearm from a motor vehicle. (§§ 187, 189, subd. (a), 190.2, subd. (a)(21).) Defendant was 19 years old when he committed the murder. The trial court sentenced him to life in prison without the possibility of parole, plus 10 years for personally using a firearm In 2023, defendant filed a motion requesting a Franklin hearing, at which he could augment the record to include mitigating evidence that would be relevant at an eventual youth offender parole hearing. (People v. Franklin, supra, 63 Cal.4th at p. 261; In re Cook, supra, 7 Cal.5th at p. 439; § 3051.) In the motion, defendant claimed he was entitled to a youth offender parole hearing because, by denying youth offender parole hearings to young adults convicted of special-circumstance murder, like him, section 3051, subdivision (h) violated his right to equal protection of the law. The trial court summarily denied his motion, finding defendant was ineligible for a youth offender parole hearing pursuant to section 3051, subdivision (h). Defendant appealed.