Delgado

People v. Delgado

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 29, 2022G059650California2,022 words

Opinion

Opinion

DISCUSSION

Appellant admits he is statutorily ineligible for a YOPH because he was sentenced under the Three Strikes law. However, he contends he is entitled to a YOPH – and a concomitant Franklin proceeding – as a matter of equal protection. Although we reject appellant’s equal protection argument, both parties now conclude he is entitled to a Franklin proceeding under the standard rules applicable to all parole hearings. We agree. Legal Framework Over the past two decades, the United States Supreme Court has redefined the parameters of juvenile sentencing. In Roper v. Simmons (2005) 543 U.S. 551, the court held the Eighth Amendment proscribes capital punishment for minors. Then, in Graham v. Florida (2010) 560 U.S. 48, the court found it cruel and unusual to sentence juvenile nonhomicide offenders to life in prison without parole (LWOP). The high court followed that decision with Miller v. Alabama (2012) 567 U.S. 460, which prohibits

2 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.

3 mandatory LWOP for juvenile homicide offenders. (See also People v. Caballero (2012) 55 Cal.4th 262 [barring de facto LWOP sentences for juvenile nonhomicide offenders].) The underlying…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.