Court Opinion

ID: 9927050
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-26 01:02:03.154048+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:23:46.526666
License: Public Domain

Filed 1/25/24 P. v. Moore CA1/3
                  NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or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 THREE

    THE PEOPLE,
           Plaintiff and Respondent,
                                                                         A166422
    v.
    KENNETH LYNN MOORE,                                                  (Alameda County
                                                                         Super. Ct. No. 67113B)
           Defendant and Appellant.

                                           MEMORANDUM OPINION1
         In 1980, a jury convicted defendant Kenneth Lynn Moore of an array of
over 50 crimes, including two counts of first degree murder and assorted
counts of burglary, robbery, and rape. As to the murder counts, the jury
found true robbery-murder and multiple-murder special-circumstance
allegations. Moore was 20 years old at the time of the murders. The trial
court sentenced defendant to life without the possibility of parole (LWOP) for
the murder counts. This division affirmed the judgment in 1984. (People v.
Moore (1984) 162 Cal.App.3d 709.)

1    We resolve this case by memorandum opinion pursuant to California
Standards of Judicial Administration, section 8.1.
      The record in Moore’s prior appeal, case no. A165429, has been
incorporated by reference in this matter.

                                                               1
      On June 9, 2022, Moore filed a pro se motion in the trial court pursuant
to Penal Code section 1203.012 requesting a Franklin proceeding—i.e., a
proceeding where youthful offenders can make a record to preserve evidence
for an eventual parole hearing—and appointment of counsel. (People v.
Franklin (2016) 63 Cal.4th 261 (Franklin).) On July 11, 2022, the court
denied the motion and attendant request for counsel, reasoning that Franklin
proceedings are unavailable to defendants like Moore, who were young adult
offenders sentenced to LWOP. (§ 3051, subd. (h).) As relevant here, the court
rejected Moore’s contention that excluding young adults sentenced to LWOP
from parole consideration violates equal protection, noting numerous cases
rejecting that argument. (E.g., In re Murray (2021) 63 Cal.App.5th 184
(Murray); People v. Jackson (2021) 61 Cal.App.5th 189 (Jackson); People v.
Acosta (2021) 60 Cal.App.5th 769 (Acosta).) Moore appealed.
      On appeal, Moore challenges the denial of his motion for a Franklin
proceeding on equal protection grounds. He argues that section 3051 violates
equal protection by rendering young adult offenders who committed their
controlling offenses between the ages of 18 and 25 and were sentenced to
LWOP ineligible for Franklin proceedings, while young adult offenders who
committed first degree murder but were not sentenced to LWOP are eligible.
      Under section 3051, young adult offenders, like Moore, who were
sentenced to LWOP and were over the age of 18 at the time of their
controlling offense are ineligible for a youth offender parole hearing. (§ 3051,
subd. (h).) That said, non-LWOP (i.e., parole eligible) young adult offenders
who committed first degree murder between the ages of 18 to 25 are eligible.
(Id., subd. (b)(3).)

2     All statutory references are to the Penal Code.

                                       2
      “Equal protection ensures that the government does not treat one
group of people ‘unequally’ in comparison to other groups with similar
characteristics ‘without some justification.’ [Citation.] First, we consider
whether ‘ “the state has adopted a classification that affects two or more
similarly situated groups in an unequal manner.” ’ [Citation.] The groups
need not be similar in all respects but must be similarly situated for the
purposes of the challenged law. [Citation.] Second, if two similarly situated
groups have been identified and no suspect class or fundamental rights are at
issue, we must decide whether there is any rational basis to support treating
the groups differently.” (People v. Sands (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 193, 202
(Sands).) We review equal protection claims de novo. (People v. Morales
(2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 326, 345 (Morales).)
      Here, as in other cases, we will assume that the first prong of the test is
met, i.e., that young adult offenders like Moore who were sentenced to LWOP
for crimes committed between the ages of 18 to 25 are similarly situated with
non-LWOP young adult offenders. (Sands, supra, 70 Cal.App.5th at p. 203;
Morales, supra, 67 Cal.App.5th at p. 347.) That said, a long line of cases has
concluded there is “a rational basis for distinguishing between a young adult
LWOP offender and a young adult offender serving a non-LWOP sentence:
the severity of the crime committed.” (Acosta, supra, 60 Cal.App.5th at
p. 780; People v. Ngo (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 116, 123–124 (Ngo), review
granted May 17, 2023, S279458; Sands, supra, 70 Cal.App.5th at p. 204;
Morales, supra, 67 Cal.App.5th at pp. 347–349; Jackson, supra, 61
Cal.App.5th at pp. 199–200; In re Williams (2020) 57 Cal.App.5th 427, 436.)
We adopt the reasoning in these cases and will not restate what they have
already said on the subject.

                                       3
      Acknowledging the majority of cases have rejected his position, Moore
urges us to adopt the reasoning of People v. Hardin (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th
273, review granted January 11, 2023, S277487, where Division Seven of the
Second Appellate District concluded there was no rational basis for the
disparate treatment of young adult LWOP and young adult non-LWOP
offenders. We decline to do so for the reasons set out in Ngo by Division Two
of the Fourth Appellate District. (Ngo, supra, 89 Cal.App.5th at pp. 124–126;
see Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(e)(1).) Again, we will not belabor the
point by repeating Ngo’s apt criticisms of Hardin; instead, we adopt the
reasoning in Ngo, which we find persuasive.
      In reaching this conclusion, we note the California Supreme Court has
granted review in Hardin and has deferred action in Ngo pending the
outcome in Hardin. While we await a decision in Hardin, we affirm the
denial of Moore’s motion for the reasons stated in the aforementioned cases.
This affirmance is without prejudice to Moore’s filing of another Franklin
motion should the result in Hardin warrant it.
                                 DISPOSITION
      The order of the trial court denying defendant’s motion for a Franklin
proceeding is affirmed.

                                       4
                            _________________________
                            Fujisaki, J.

WE CONCUR:

_________________________
Tucher, P.J.

_________________________
Rodríguez, J.

People v. Moore (A166422)

                              5