People v. Mitchell CA2/6

Discussion Appellant acknowledges that the doctrine of law of the case forecloses raising the sub-issues of equal protection and cruel or unusual punishment previously raised and rejected in Mitchell I, supra, B329199. (Citing People v. Stanley (1995) 10 Cal.4th 764, 786-787.) However, appellant contends he is not precluded from arguing that there is no rational basis to distinguish between young adult offenders sentenced to LWOP and juvenile offenders sentenced to LWOP because the Court in Hardin did not consider

3 that issue and Mitchell I, supra, B329199, did not discuss it. (See Hardin, supra, 15 Cal.5th at p. 846.) This contention is forfeited for failure to raise it below. (People v. Smith (2001) 24 Cal.4th 849, 852.) But even absent forfeiture, appellant’s contention is meritless. California appellate courts have concluded that the Legislature had a rational basis to distinguish between offenders with the same sentence based on their age. (See People v. Sands (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 193, 204; In re Murray (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 456, 463-464; People v. Morales (2021) 67 Cal.App. 5th 326, 347; People v. Jackson (2021) 61 Cal.App.5th 189, 196- 197; People v. Acosta (2021) 60…