People v. Galafate CA5

Filed 5/13/24 P. v. Galafate 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, F086526 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. SC036346A) v.

ROMAN GALAFATE III, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Kern County. Elizabet Rodriguez, Judge. Heather E. Shallenberger, 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, Ivan P. Marrs and Jennifer M. Poe, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Poochigian, Acting P. J., Detjen, J. and Peña, J.

INTRODUCTION Appellant Roman Galafate III (appellant) was convicted of first degree murder with a special circumstance and sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole (LWOP). The judgment was affirmed on direct appeal. His numerous petitions seeking reversal and resentencing have been denied. The instant appeal is from the trial court’s order in 2023, that denied appellant’s motion for a youthful offender hearing. The court relied on existing statutory and case authorities that exclude a prisoner sentenced to LWOP from receiving a youthful offender hearing, and rejected appellant’s equal protection arguments. In their initial briefing on appeal, the parties acknowledged there were conflicting opinions from appellate courts on the constitutional issue. The California Supreme Court has now resolved this matter and held the statutory exclusion is not unconstitutional. We affirm the trial court’s order. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In 1989, appellant and his then-wife, codefendant Leny Petersen Galafate (Leny),1 were convicted after a joint jury trial of count 1, first degree premeditated murder of Violeta Peterson (Violeta), with the special circumstance that the murder was intentional and carried out for financial gain; and count 2, conspiracy to commit murder for financial gain. Appellant and Leny were both sentenced to LWOP for count 1, with a stayed term of 25 years to life for count 2. The trial evidence established that appellant was an insurance agent, appellant and Leny had financial problems, and they declared bankruptcy. Approximately two weeks after they received their discharge from bankruptcy, appellant processed an application