People v. Wong CA1/1

Filed 6/20/24 P. v. Wong CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A168706

v. ANDREW WONG, (Alameda County Super. Ct. No. 163657) Defendant and Appellant.

Andrew Wong appeals from an order denying his motion for a hearing to preserve evidence for a future youth offender parole hearing. Wong is serving a sentence of life without parole, plus 50 years, for murders he committed when he was 19 and 20 years old. He contends that excluding youthful offenders who are serving life without parole sentences from youth offender parole hearings, while providing those hearings to other youthful offenders who were between 18 and 25 years old when they committed their crime, violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. Alternatively, he contends the denial of such hearings for youthful offender life without parole prisoners violates federal and state constitutional prohibitions against cruel and unusual punishment. Applying recent and well-established precedent, we disagree and affirm.

I. BACKGROUND In 2008, Wong, then 19 years old, shot and killed his bookie. The next year, Wong shot and killed his coworker, who acted as a go-between for him with another bookie. In 2012, a jury convicted Wong of two counts of murder (Pen. Code,1 § 187, subd. (a)) with a multiple murder special circumstance finding (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(3)). He was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole, plus 50 years. In 2015, we affirmed the judgment. (People v. Wong (June 16, 2015, A137584) [nonpub. opn.].) In July 2023, Wong moved for a hearing to preserve evidence for use at a future youth offender parole hearing pursuant to section 1203.01. (People v. Franklin (2016) 63 Cal.4th 261; In re Cook (2019) 7 Cal.5th 439.) The trial court denied the motion, finding he was ineligible for a youth offender parole hearing under section 3051, subdivision (h) because he was older than 18 when he committed the crimes. II. DISCUSSION A. Youth Offender Parole Statute “California’s youth offender parole statute offers opportunities for early release to certain persons who are incarcerated for crimes they committed at a young age. (Pen. Code, §§ 3051, 4801.) When it was first enacted in 2013, the statute applied only to individuals who committed their crimes before the age of 18; the purpose of the statute was to align California law with then- recent court decisions identifying Eighth Amendment limitations on life without parole sentences for juvenile offenders. In more recent years, however, the Legislature has expanded the statute to include certain young adult offenders as well. Under the current version of the statute, most persons incarcerated for a crime committed between ages 18 and 25 are