People v. Sedillo CA2/3

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 8, 2024B329864California2,035 words

Opinion

Opinion

BACKGROUND

In 2009, a jury found Sedillo guilty of two counts of special circumstance murder (§§ 187, subd. (a), 190.2, subd. (a)(3) [multiple murder special circumstance] & (21) [murder committed by personally discharging firearm from vehicle at person outside vehicle with intent to inflict death special circumstance]; counts 1 & 2) and two counts of attempted murder (§§ 664, 187, subd. (a); counts 3 & 4). As to counts 1, 2, and 4, the jury found that Sedillo personally and intentionally discharged a firearm causing great bodily injury or death (§ 12022.53, subd. (d)). As relevant here, Sedillo’s sentence included two terms of life without parole.

1 All further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

2 Such a hearing is sometimes referred to as a Franklin hearing.

2 In May 2022, Sedillo filed a writ of habeas corpus in which he requested a Franklin hearing. The trial court treated the writ as a request for a Franklin hearing. On March 30, 2023, the trial court issued an order finding that denying youth offender parole hearings to 18-to-25 year olds sentenced to life without parole did not violate the equal protection clause. The trial court therefore denied…

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.