Court Opinion

ID: 9949456
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-11 18:02:36.772647+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:26:18.472340
License: Public Domain

Filed 3/11/24 P. v. Clark CA1/4
                  NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for
publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or
ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

          IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

                                      FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                                  DIVISION FOUR

 THE PEOPLE,                                                             A166294
           Plaintiff and Respondent,
 v.                                                                      (Sonoma County Super.
 STEVEN CLARK,                                                           Ct. No. SCR-13857)

           Defendant and Appellant.

                                       MEMORANDUM OPINION1
         In 1989, Steven Clark pled guilty to two counts of first degree murder,
among other offenses, and admitted a felony-murder special circumstance on
each murder count. (Pen. Code §§ 187, 190.2, subd. (a)(17) (future
undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code).) The parties both
state that the facts of the crimes are not relevant to the issue on appeal and
have not described them, but they agree that Clark was 19 years old at the
time. He was sentenced to two consecutive prison terms of life without the
possibility of parole (LWOP) for the murders.
          In 2022, Clark moved for a Franklin/Cook hearing to preserve
evidence for use at a future youth offender parole hearing. (People v.

         1 We resolve this case by memorandum opinion pursuant to the

California Standards of Judicial Administration, section 8.1.
Franklin (2016) 63 Cal.4th 261; In re Cook (2019) 7 Cal.5th 439; § 1203.01.)
The trial court denied the motion on the ground that youth offender parole
hearings are not available for people who are serving LWOP sentences.
(§ 3051, subd. (h).) Clark timely appealed.
      Clark argues, as he did in the trial court, that section 3051 violates
federal and state constitutional guaranties of equal protection by making
youth offender parole hearings available for those serving non-LWOP
sentences for crimes committed when they were between 18 and 25 years of
age, but not for those who committed their crimes at the same age and are
serving LWOP sentences. The issue is one that had divided the Courts of
Appeal, but after briefing in this case was complete, the California Supreme
Court resolved the conflict by holding that section 3051 does not violate equal
protection. (People v. Hardin (Mar. 4, 2024, No. S277487) ___Cal.5th___
[2024 Cal. Lexis 1076, p. *58].) Although the court left open the possibility of
“other challenges to the distinctions drawn by the special circumstances
statute based on a more robust record or a more focused as-applied inquiry”
(id. at pp. *51–*52), here Clark has not made an as-applied challenge based
on the special circumstance he admitted,2 and he noted in his opening brief
that the underlying facts (which are largely absent from the record on appeal)
are not relevant to the legal issue he raises. Under these circumstances,
Hardin is controlling and requires us to reject Clark’s claim.

      2 The special circumstance at issue in Hardin was that the defendant

murdered the victim “during the commission of a robbery.” (People v. Hardin,
supra, ___ Cal.5th ___ [2024 Cal. Lexis 1076 at pp. *6–*7]; § 190.2,
subd. (a)(17)(A).) Similarly, the special circumstance here was that Clark
murdered the victims during the commission of a felony (§ 190.2,
subd. (a)(17)); the documents in the record do not indicate which of the
enumerated felonies in subdivision (a)(17) he admitted for each murder, but
they show that he also pled guilty to robbery, attempted robbery, and
burglary.

                                       2
                                DISPOSITION
      The order denying Clark’s motion for a Franklin/Cook hearing is
affirmed.
                                           GOLDMAN, J.

WE CONCUR:

STREETER, Acting P. J.
SMILEY, J. *

* Judge of the Superior Court of California, Alameda County, assigned by the

Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.

                                       3