People v. Moreno CA2/3

DISCUSSION

Moreno argues that excluding a juvenile offender sentenced to 50 years to life for eligibility for relief under section 1170, subdivision (d)(1) violates equal protection of the laws. Moreno reasons that he is entitled to relief under equal protection principles as stated in People v. Heard (2022) 83 Cal.App.5th 608 (Heard), People v. Sorto (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 435 (Sorto), and People v. Bagsby (2024) 106 Cal.App.5th 1040 (Bagsby), because a 50-year-to-life sentence is the functional equivalent of life without the possibility of parole (LWOP) and no rational basis exists for excluding him. The Attorney General agrees. Although the Attorney General’s concession is entitled to deference, we are not bound to accept a concession by a party “establishing the law applicable to a case.” (Desny v. Wilder (1956) 46 Cal.2d 715, 729; People v. Alvarado (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 1003, 1021.) The interpretation of a challenged statute is a question of law that we must independently determine. (Thompson, supra, 112 Cal.App.5th at p. 1063, review granted.)

I. Functional equivalence of LWOP

The Legislature enacted Senate Bill No. 9 (2011–2012 Reg. Sess.) which amended section 1170…