78 Cal.App.5th 95
Cal. Ct. App.2022Background
- Delgado committed multiple violent felonies (1994–1995 robberies, kidnapping, gun possession) when he was 23–24 and had a prior "strike." He was sentenced to 59 years to life under California's Three Strikes law.
- In 2020 Delgado sought a Franklin proceeding (a pre-parole-recording proceeding to preserve youth-related mitigation evidence) in anticipation of a youth offender parole hearing (YOPH).
- The trial court denied the request because section 3051 excludes defendants sentenced under the Three Strikes law from YOPH eligibility.
- Delgado appealed, arguing equal protection and entitlement to a Franklin proceeding; the parties later agreed a Franklin proceeding should be available under section 4801(c).
- The Court of Appeal reversed and remanded, holding Delgado is not entitled to a YOPH on equal protection grounds but is entitled to a limited Franklin proceeding to preserve youth-related evidence under section 4801(c) and Franklin principles.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a defendant statutorily ineligible for a YOPH is nevertheless entitled to a Franklin proceeding to preserve youth-related evidence | Section 3051(h) bars YOPH for Three Strikes defendants; no Franklin if no YOPH entitlement | Franklin should be available to preserve youth-related evidence for future parole review; §4801(c) requires youth factors be considered | Court: Denies YOPH entitlement on equal protection but grants a Franklin proceeding under §4801(c) and Franklin to create a baseline record; reversed and remanded |
| Whether excluding Three Strikes defendants from §3051 YOPH violates equal protection | Exclusion is rational: recidivists with strikes present higher risk; Legislature may treat them differently | Delgado: similarly situated to other youthful offenders and exclusion is irrational | Court: Rejects equal protection claim—prior strikes make defendant dissimilar and exclusion is rational |
Key Cases Cited
- Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (U.S. 2005) (barred capital punishment for juvenile offenders)
- Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (U.S. 2010) (prohibited life without parole for juvenile nonhomicide offenders)
- Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (U.S. 2012) (prohibited mandatory LWOP for juvenile homicide offenders)
- People v. Franklin, 63 Cal.4th 261 (Cal. 2016) (established Franklin proceeding to create a baseline record of youth-related factors for future parole review)
- In re Cook, 7 Cal.5th 439 (Cal. 2019) (Franklin entitlement applies retroactively; relief available after final judgment)
- People v. Caballero, 55 Cal.4th 262 (Cal. 2012) (barred de facto LWOP for juvenile nonhomicide offenders)
- People v. Morales, 63 Cal.4th 399 (Cal. 2016) (equal protection framework for comparing similarly situated defendants)
- People v. Wilkes, 46 Cal.App.5th 1159 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020) (Three Strikes defendants are not similarly situated to first-time youthful offenders for equal protection)
- People v. Edwards, 34 Cal.App.5th 183 (Cal. Ct. App. 2019) (held One Strike exclusion could violate equal protection under different facts)
- People v. Moore, 68 Cal.App.5th 856 (Cal. Ct. App. 2021) (upheld exclusion of Three Strikes defendants from YOPH as rational)