From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Brinson

California Court of Appeals, Second District, First Division
Jun 11, 2024
No. B328758 (Cal. Ct. App. Jun. 11, 2024)

Opinion

B328758

06-11-2024

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DAVID BRINSON, Defendant and Appellant.

Adrian K. Panton, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant Attorney General, Noah P. Hill and Nima Razfar, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.


NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Nos. BH014271, BA021072 William C. Ryan, Judge.

Adrian K. Panton, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant Attorney General, Noah P. Hill and Nima Razfar, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

BENDIX, J.

Penal Code sections 3051 and 4801 "offer[ ] opportunities for early release to certain persons who are incarcerated for crimes they committed at a young age." (People v. Hardin (2024) 15 Cal.5th 834, 838 (Hardin).) The statutes exclude youthful offenders serving sentences of life without the possibility of parole. (Id. at pp. 838-839.) Our Supreme Court recently held that exclusion of offenders serving life without the possibility of parole is constitutionally valid on its face and as applied to individuals "who are serving life without parole sentences for special circumstance murder." (Id. at p. 839.)

Undesignated statutory citations are to the Penal Code.

Defendant David Brinson, who was convicted of four counts of special circumstance murder, appeals from an order finding him ineligible for the possibility of early release because he was sentenced to multiple terms of life without the possibility of parole. We follow our high court's decision in Hardin and affirm.

BACKGROUND

We resolve this case by a memorandum opinion pursuant to California Standards of Judicial Administration, Standard 8.1. Accordingly, we provide limited factual and procedural background. The facts underlying defendant's offenses are not included in the appellate record and are not relevant to any issue on appeal.

The parties indicate defendant was 18 when he committed his crimes. The notice of appeal shows he committed them one day before his 20th birthday. The difference does not matter for purposes of this appeal.

In 1993, a jury convicted defendant of four counts of special-circumstance murder, two counts of robbery, and two counts of attempted robbery. The jury also found firearm allegations true. The trial court sentenced defendant to four consecutive life terms without the possibility of parole. The court sentenced defendant to an additional 20-year determinate term.

In December 2022, defendant filed a pro se motion requesting the opportunity to present youth-related mitigating evidence for use in a future youth offender parole hearing pursuant to sections 3051 and 4801 and People v. Franklin (2016) 63 Cal.4th 261. Franklin holds that a defendant "who will later become eligible for a youth offender parole hearing is entitled to an interim court proceeding to develop and preserve evidence of youth-related characteristics and circumstances at the time of the offense." (Hardin, supra, 15 Cal.5th at p. 840.)

The trial court denied defendant's motion because he is statutorily ineligible for future early release. The court also found defendant did not show he had been granted or denied a youth offender parole hearing by the Board of Parole Hearings.

DISCUSSION

Defendant filed his opening brief before our Supreme Court decided Hardin and relied on the appellate court decision reversed in Hardin. Defendant argued that denying the opportunity to present youth-related mitigation evidence to preserve that information for a future youth offender parole hearing to a defendant who committed his crimes at age 18 and who was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole violates equal protection.

Hardin forecloses defendant's argument. Hardin rejected an equal protection challenge by a defendant sentenced to life without the possibility of parole. (Supra, 15 Cal.5th at pp. 838839.) In Hardin, Hardin, a defendant sentenced to life without the possibility of parole, filed a postjudgment motion to preserve evidence for later use in a youth offender parole hearing, the same motion filed by defendant. (Id. at p. 840.) Hardin argued that treating young adult offenders sentenced to life without parole for special circumstance murder differently from young adult offenders serving parole-eligible sentences violates equal protection. (Id. at p. 841.) The high court rejected the argument and concluded Hardin failed to show "the life without parole exclusion is irrational, and therefore unconstitutional, as applied to individuals sentenced for special circumstance murder," which the court described as a "particularly culpable offense." (Id. at pp. 858, 860.)

Here, defendant is similarly ineligible for early release and therefore the trial court did not err in denying his request for a hearing to preserve evidence for a future youth offender parole hearing. Defendant is ineligible because he was convicted of four special-circumstance murders and sentenced to four life sentences without the possibility of parole. Under Hardin, defendant's ineligibility for early release does not violate equal protection.

Because we conclude defendant demonstrates no equal protection violation, we need not consider his additional argument that the trial court erred in concluding defendant's request for a future youth offender parole hearing should be addressed to the Board of Parole Hearings.

DISPOSITION

The trial court's order is affirmed.

We concur: ROTHSCHILD, P. J., CHANEY, J.


Summaries of

People v. Brinson

California Court of Appeals, Second District, First Division
Jun 11, 2024
No. B328758 (Cal. Ct. App. Jun. 11, 2024)
Case details for

People v. Brinson

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DAVID BRINSON, Defendant and…

Court:California Court of Appeals, Second District, First Division

Date published: Jun 11, 2024

Citations

No. B328758 (Cal. Ct. App. Jun. 11, 2024)