Tag Archives: Youthful offenders

Duty of the court, Jurisdiction, Pleading, Sentencing

Case 001120

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court erred in denying the defendant’s motion for a Franklin hearing.

First Holding:

Franklin held that youth offenders must have an opportunity to put on the record information relevant to any eventual Penal Code section 3051 youth offender parole hearing.

Authority:

People v. Franklin (2016) 63 Cal.4th 261

In re Cook (2019) 7 Cal.5th 439

Second Holding:

The defendant committed his crime several decades earlier, when he was 21. After the defendant was sentenced, section 3051 became effective in 2014. Section 3051(b) requires the Board of Parole Hearings to conduct a youth offender parole hearing during the 15th, 20th, or 25th year of a youth offender’s incarceration.

The date of the hearing depends on the youth offender’s controlling offense, defined as the offense or enhancement for which any sentencing court imposed the longest term of imprisonment. The section applies to offenders like the defendant who committed their controlling offense when they were 25 years old or younger.

Authority:

PEN 3051

People v. Franklin (2016) 63 Cal.4th 261, 277

Third Holding:

After section 3051’s passage, Franklin held that the section contemplated that information regarding the juvenile offender’s characteristics and circumstances at the time of the offense will be available at a youth offender parole hearing to facilitate consideration by the board. Under section 3051(f)(2), persons with information about youth offender may submit statements for review by board. Assembling such mitigating information will typically be more easily done at or near the time of the juvenile’s offense.

Authority:

PEN 3051(f)(2)

People v. Franklin (2016) 63 Cal.4th 261, 283

Fourth Holding:

Cook held that youth offenders whose convictions are final may move in the trial court for a Franklin hearing under section 1203.01. Section 1203.01 provides that postjudgment, a trial court may generate, collect, and transmit information about the defendant and the crime to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

Authority:

In re Cook (2019) 7 Cal.5th 439

Fifth Holding:

The trial court erred in concluding it did not have jurisdiction to act because the filing of a notice of appeal on an earlier motion for discovery deprived the trial court of jurisdiction to proceed.

Generally, the filing of a valid notice of appeal vests jurisdiction of the cause in the appellate court until it determines the appeal and issues the remittitur, thereby divesting the trial court of jurisdiction over anything affecting the judgment.

However, appellate jurisdiction does not divest the trial court of all power to act. Perfection of an appeal stays proceedings in the trial court only of matters embraced in the matter being appealed. The trial court otherwise may act on any matter embraced in the action and not affected by the judgment or order on appeal.

Authority:

CCP 916

People v. Flores (2003) 30 Cal.4th 1059, 1064

Townsel v. Superior Court (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1084, 1089

Sixth Holding:

The Franklin motion was unaffected by and unrelated to the order on appeal. That is, the appeal pending when the defendant filed his Franklin motion concerned a motion for postconviction discovery. In contrast, proceedings under Franklin constitute a remedy of evidence preservation.

Also, Franklin proceedings are unrelated to the validity of the defendant’s sentence. Neither the entitlement to a youth offender parole hearing, nor the evidence preservation process disturbs the finality of state convictions. Thus, the Franklin hearing the defendant requested was not embraced in the order on appeal and therefore the trial court had jurisdiction to hear his motion.

Authority:

In re Cook (2019) 7 Cal.5th 439, 446-447, 451

People v. Lizarraga (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 201, 207 [Franklin hearing does not expose a defendant to increase or decrease in sentence]

Seventh Holding:

The court erred in denying the motion as not being in compliance with Cook. The defendant’s motion was sufficient to initiate Franklin proceedings. The requirements for a Franklin motion are minimal, and the motion need not describe in detail the evidence the youth offender seeks to preserve. Instead, where a motion includes relevant criminal case information and legal authority and establishes eligibility for a youth offender parole hearing, the motion should be granted.

Here, the defendant’s motion cited section 1203.01 and 3051 and Cook in his motion. He stated his qualifying age, the original case number. He identified the controlling offense of murder, requested counsel, said he had never had a Frankling hearing, and asked for an opportunity to make a record of his characteristics as a youth offender. Based on this information, the trial court should have granted the defendant’s motion to initiate Franklin proceedings.

We express no opinion on whether the trial court must hold a formal Franklin hearing.

Authority:

People v. Howard (2021) 74 Cal.App.5th 141, 150, 152 [legally sufficient Franklin motion only requires defendant be given opportunity to place additional evidence in record]

People v. Lipptrapp (2021) 59 Cal.App.5th 886, 893–894 [trial court erred by denying Franklin motion that identified original case, relevant law, defendant’s age, sentence, and relief requested]

In re Cook (2019) 7 Cal.5th 439, 446-447, 459 [court has discretion to determine how to conduct process efficiently]

Amelioration, Eighth Amendment, Juveniles, Probation Parole PRCS, Sentencing

Case 001031

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

A sentence of more than 72 years to life plus two life terms imposed in 1995 on a 16-year-old minor is the functional equivalent of life without the possibility of parole. The trial court erred in denying the defendant’s motion for resentencing under section 1170(d)(1).

If the court resentences, the court must then consider whether to transfer the case back to juvenile court for a transfer hearing to determine whether the matter should be retained under juvenile court jurisdiction or transferred back to adult court, applying Proposition 57.

First Holding:

Section 1170(d)(1) allows juvenile offenders to petition for recall and resentencing after 15 years of incarceration if they were sentenced to life without the possibility of parole (LWOP).

Authority:

PEN 1170(d)(1)

Second Holding:

A sentence of 72 years eight months to life, plus two life sentences is the functional equivalent of an LWOP sentence, and therefore, the defendant is eligible for resentencing under equal protection principles. As the two life sentences carry a minimum of seven years on each, the effective sentence in this matter is more than 86 years to life. Under that sentence, the defendant would not be released before he reached 102 years of age.

Authority:

People v. Heard (2022) 83 Cal.App.5th 608

People v. Sorto (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 435

People v. Bagsby (2024) 106 Cal.App.5th 1040, 1056

People v. Mendez (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 47, 50, 68 [sentence of 84 years to life was the equivalent of LWOP and constituted cruel and unusual punishment]

People v. Franklin (2016) 63 Cal.4th 261, 273 [under sec. 3046, where two indeterminate sentences run consecutively, a defendant must serve the full minimum term of each before becoming eligible for parole]

Third Holding:

A petition under section 1170(d)(1) must include a statement describing the defendant’s remorse, work toward rehabilitation, and a statement that one of four qualifying circumstances is true.

The four qualifying circumstances under section 1170(d)(2), are:

(A) The defendant was convicted pursuant to felony murder or aiding and abetting murder provisions of law.

(B) The defendant does not have juvenile felony adjudications for assault or other felony crimes with a significant potential for personal harm to victims prior to the offense for which the sentence is being considered for recall.

(C) The defendant committed the offense with at least one adult codefendant.

(D) The defendant has performed acts that tend to indicate rehabilitation or the potential for rehabilitation, including, but not limited to, availing themselves of rehabilitative, educational, or vocational programs, if those programs have been available at their classification level and facility, using self-study for self-improvement, or showing evidence of remorse.

Authority:

PEN 1170(d)(2)

Fourth Holding:

Recall and resentencing entitles eligible defendants to the benefits of retroactive ameliorative changes to the law, such as Proposition 57, which eliminated the prosecution’s right to file charges for eligible crimes against a minor directly in adult court without a fitness or transfer hearing.

Authority:

People v. Sorto (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 435, 449

People v. Montes (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 35, 48-49 [ordering superior court to transfer case to juvenile court to hold hearing under Prop. 57 where court had recalled LWOP sentence under sec. 1170(d)(1) for a defendant who had committed crimes when he was 17 years old]

People v. Superior Court (Lara) (2018) 4 Cal.5th 299, 304, 309 [Proposition 57 constituted an ameliorative change to the criminal law, and therefore, it applies retroactively to all juveniles charged directly in adult court whose judgment was not final at the time it was enacted.]

People v. Padilla (2022) 13 Cal.5th 152, 161-162 [once a superior court recalls a sentence, it becomes nonfinal, and Proposition 57 applies retroactively]

People v. Ramirez (2021) 71 Cal.App.5th 971, 996 [because sentence was vacated under (what is now section 1172.6), defendant’s sentence became nonfinal for purposes of Proposition 57]

Fifth Holding:

In Graham, the United States Supreme Court held that the Eighth Amendment bars the imposition of an LWOP sentence for a juvenile offender who did not commit a homicide.

In Miller, the United States Supreme Court held that the Eighth Amendment prohibits mandatory LWOP sentences for juvenile homicide offenders. In sentencing a juvenile homicide offender the trial court must have the ability to impose a sentence less than LWOP after taking into account youth-related factors and whether the offender may be rehabilitated.

Tha California Supreme Court in Caballero applied the holding in Graham to a 110 years-to-life sentence, describing the sentence as a term-of-years sentence that amounts to the functional equivalent of a life without parole sentence.

Authority:

Graham v. Florida (2010) 560 U.S. 48, 82

Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460, 465, 477

People v. Caballero (2012) 55 Cal.4th 262, 265, 267-268

Sixth Holding:

In Contreras, the California Supreme Court considered whether a lengthy term-of-years sentence, though not clearly exceeding a juvenile offender’s natural lifespan, may nonetheless impinge on the same substantive concerns that make the imposition of LWOP on juvenile nonhomicide offenders impermissible under the Eighth Amendment.

The Contreras court concluded that sentences of 50 years or more to life for juvenile nonhomicide offenders were the functional equivalent of LWOP sentences for purposes of the Eighth Amendment because, as contemplated by Graham:

(1) confinement with no possibility of release until age 66 or age 74 seems unlikely to allow for reintegration into society;

(2) a juvenile offender who has no chance to leave prison for 50 years has little incentive to become a responsible individual;

(3) a 50-years-to-life sentence, though less harsh than LWOP, is still an especially harsh punishment for a juvenile, who will on average serve more years and a greater percentage of his life in prison than an adult offender;

(4) Graham’s observation that juveniles have limited ability to consider consequences when making decisions applies to a sentence of 50 years to life just as it does to a sentence of LWOP; and

(5) a judgment that a juvenile offender will be incorrigible for the next 50 years is no less questionable than a judgment that the juvenile offender will be incorrigible forever.

Authority:

People v. Contreras (2018) 4 Cal.5th 349, 356, 364

Seventh Holding:

By leaving section 1170(d)(1) in place after enacting section 3051 (which sets up a scheme of parole eligibility consideration for juvenile and young offenders), the Legislature has signaled its preference for section 1170(d)(1) to persist rather than to be stricken, thereby ensuring section 1170(d)(1) provides relief in addition to the relief provided by section 3051.

Authority:

People v. Bagsby (2024) 106 Cal.App.5th 1040, 1063

Due process, Duty of counsel, Duty of the court, Effective assistance of counsel, Jurisdiction, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case 001026

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Twenty-one years after his conviction of murder committed when he was 20, the defendant filed a motion for a hearing under Franklin. The court (Judge A) appointed counsel and set a hearing date to determine whether the defendant was entitled to a full evidence preservation hearing. The defendant’s attorney ultimately filed a motion to be relieved as counsel, requesting that the matter be taken off the calendar, stating that the defendant was not entitled to a Franklin hearing under Hardin. There was no indication that counsel had discussed this with the defendant. The defendant was not present. The court (Judge B) relieved counsel and took the matter off calendar.

The order relieving defendant’s appointed counsel is reversed. Upon remand, the trial court shall issue an order reinstating counsel and set the request for a formal, noticed hearing in which defendant is given notice and an opportunity to respond.

To the extent defendant maintains upon remand that appointed counsel’s representation is inadequate or ineffective, the trial court is directed to consider any such claim under the principles set forth in People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118

The trial court is further directed to set a new hearing for defendant’s Franklin motion if the defendant requests such relief upon remand.

First Holding:

Section 3051 offers youth offenders committed for long prison terms an opportunity for early release on parole. It requires the Board of Parole Hearings to conduct a youth offender parole eligibility hearing to determine if, based on certain criteria involving the controlling offense, the offender is eligible for parole. The hearing must provide for a meaningful opportunity to obtain release, and includes an assessment of the offender’s growth and maturity that takes into consideration the diminished culpability of youth as compared to that of adults and the hallmark features of youth.

Given these factors, the California Supreme Court held in Franklin that when a juvenile offender receives an indeterminate life sentence, the offender must be given adequate opportunity at sentencing to make a record of mitigating evidence tied to his youth.

Authority:

PEN 3051

People v. Williams (2024) 17 Cal.5th 99, 113

People v. Medrano (2019) 40 Cal.App.5th 961, 967

People v. Franklin (2016) 63 Cal.4th 261, 269

Second Holding:

In Cook, the California Supreme Court extended the availability of a Franklin hearing to a juvenile offender whose conviction and sentence have become final. Specifically, it held that an offender entitled to a youth offender parole hearing may seek the remedy of a Franklin proceeding even though the offender’s sentence is otherwise final. To initiate such a proceeding, an offender should file a motion requesting a hearing under the authority of section 1203.01.

Authority:

PEN 1203.01

People v. Ngo (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 116, 127

In re Cook (2019) 7 Cal.5th 439, 451

People v. Howard (2021) 74 Cal.App.5th 141, 150

Third Holding:

The proper avenue to request a Franklin proceeding is to file a motion in superior court under the original caption and case number, citing the authority of section 1203.01 and Cook. The motion should establish the inmate’s entitlement to a youth offender parole hearing and indicate when such hearing is anticipated to take place, or if one or more hearings have already occurred. Nothing in Cook indicates the motion must describe with precision the evidence the offender seeks to introduce.

There are no mandatory pleading requirements for a Franklin motion, and the required showing to initiate the process for a Franklin proceeding is minimal: due to the limited resources generally available to inmates, the Cook court reasonably envisioned a simple pleading mechanism to get the process started.

Authority:

People v. Howard (2021) 74 Cal.App.5th 141, 150

People v. Lipptrapp (2021) 59 Cal.App.5th 886, 896

Fourth Holding:

A legally sufficient Franklin motion does not automatically guarantee a defendant the right to do so. Rather, such a motion only initiates the process for a Franklin proceeding. Based solely on the motion, the trial court may immediately find a Franklin proceeding is warranted. The trial court may also exercise its discretion to conduct this process efficiently, ensuring that the information introduced is relevant, noncumulative, and otherwise in accord with the governing rules, statutes, and regulations.

The court may, for example, require an offer of proof regarding the evidence the offender seeks to present, so that it can determine whether such evidence is relevant to youth-related factors and meaningfully adds to the already available record. It may also determine whether testimony is appropriate, or if other types of evidentiary submissions will suffice. After allowing a defendant an opportunity of this nature, the court may deny further proceedings if it finds they are unlikely to produce fruitful evidence.

Authority:

People v. Howard (2021) 74 Cal.App.5th 141, 152

In re Cook (2019) 7 Cal.5th 439, 149

Fifth Holding:

Courts have subsequently held that a Franklin motion may also be used to raise a challenge to section 3051’s limitations on the availability of youth offender parole hearings on equal protection grounds.

While the California Supreme Court has concluded that section 3051’s exclusion of offenders who are serving sentences of life in prison without the possibility of parole for a crime committed after the age of 18 from youth offender parole eligibility is not facially unconstitutional, it expressly left the door open to the potential validity of challenges to other exclusions set forth in section 3051 as well as as-applied challenges based on particular special circumstances or the factual circumstances of individual cases.

Authority:

People v. Sands (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 193, 201-202

People v. Briscoe (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 479, 486-489

People v. Hardin (2024) 15 Cal.5th 834, 864

Sixth Holding:

Generally, a trial court’s removal of appointed counsel for an indigent defendant is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Here, we have determined the trial court’s order granting appointed counsel’s request to be relieved constituted an abuse of discretion.

Authority:

People v. Mungia (2008) 44 Cal.4th 1101, 1119

People v. Cole (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1158, 1190

People v. Wright (2021) 12 Cal.5th 419, 440

Seventh Holding:

Generally, both the United States Constitution and California Constitution guarantee a basic right of due process, and the fundamental requirement of due process is the opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.

The Supreme Court has held that a prisoner may derive a due process liberty interest from either the Constitution or state law. When the asserted interest is derived exclusively from state law, it will be recognized as within the scope of due process liberty if the state statute protects the interest by permitting its forfeiture only on the happening of specified conditions.

Authority:

U.S. Const., 14th Amend.

Cal. Const., art. I, secs. 7, 15

People v. Allen (2008) 44 Cal.4th 843, 869

People v. Ramirez (1979) 25 Cal.3d 260, 265

Eighth Holding:

Generally, having undertaken the defense of a criminal case an attorney must continue with his services until he is released by the client or by the court. He may apply to the court for release from further services and for good cause shown may be released, but he may not abandon his representation at will. In light of this principle, it is established that the procedural requirements of sections 284 and 285 of the Code of Civil Procedure govern a change of attorney in a criminal, as well as in a civil, proceeding.

These statutes specify that in order to withdraw from representation, an attorney must either obtain the consent of the client or bring a formal application in the trial court with notice to the client. The legislative purpose of these provisions is to provide certain safeguards to protect the accused.

Authority:

CCP 284

CCP 285

People v. Prince (1968) 268 Cal.App.2d 398, 404, 406

Smith v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1968) 68 Cal.2d 547, 558-559 [The sole statutory authority for the removal of counsel is Code of Civil Procedure section 284. That statute is applicable in criminal cases.]

In re Martinez (1959) 52 Cal.2d 808, 813

People v. Bouchard (1957) 49 Cal.2d 438, 440

People v. Kerfoot (1960) 184 Cal.App.2d 622, 636

Ninth Holding:

Here, the trial court granted appointed counsel’s request to be relieved without complying with the statutory safeguards intended to afford defendant notice and an opportunity to be heard. The trial court conducted a hearing and granted the request the day after it was filed.

There is nothing in the record to show that defendant received any notice of appointed counsel’s request to be relieved. Nor was defendant present at the hearing. Such a procedure clearly violated defendant’s right to due process. And an order made in violation of a party’s due process right to notice and an opportunity to be heard constitutes an abuse of discretion.

Authority:

People v. Kerfoot (1960) 184 Cal.App.2d 622, 636 [Adequacy of notice is an element of due process of law. There is no due process of law in the complete absence of any notice.]

People v. Williams (2021) 65 Cal.App.5th 828, 833 [Due process requires notice and an opportunity to be heard even where statutory procedures are unclear.]

People v. Johnson (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d Supp. 1, 5

Tenth Holding:

It is well established that a trial judge ordinarily may reconsider his or her own prejudgment rulings. There are limits, however, on the authority of one superior court judge to set aside the order of another judge of the same court. Under article VI, section 4, of the California Constitution, one judge or department of the superior court cannot enjoin, restrain, or otherwise interfere with the judicial act of another judge or department of the superior court.

This rule prevents a trial court judge from acting as a one-judge appellate court over another judge. This is true even if the first judge committed legal error in ruling on the matter. The rule also bars a second judge from reconsidering another judge’s discretionary appointment of counsel.

Here, the order relieving counsel was made by a different judge than the one who previously appointed counsel and set the Franklin motion for a hearing.

The record shows that the first judge reviewed defendant’s Franklin motion and, based upon that review, appointed counsel and set the matter for a hearing. Thus, the question of whether defendant had established a prima facie showing sufficient to entitle him to appointment of counsel was already considered and decided by the first judge.

Even if that determination was erroneous, the second judge could not relieve counsel by purportedly reviewing the sufficiency of defendant’s prima facie showing anew and determining that it was inadequate to warrant appointment of counsel. Doing so would have constituted an impermissible reconsideration.

To be clear, a motion to be relieved may be heard by a judge other than the one who initially appointed counsel. However, the motion must be determined on its own merits based upon the showing and arguments presented in conjunction with that request.

Authority:

Calif. Const. art VI, sec. 4

People v. Waldon (2023) 14 Cal.5th 288, 306

In re Alberto (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 421, 426-431 [second judge could not reconsider bail set by first judge even if first judge failed to correctly apply statutes in setting bail]

People v. Goodwillie (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 695, 712-713 [trial judge erred by relieving advisory counsel previously appointed by another judge]

Eleventh Holding:

In our view, the error in this case is akin to structural error requiring reversal. Typically, a defendant who has established error under state law must demonstrate there is a reasonable probability that in the absence of the error he or she would have obtained a more favorable result. However, under the California constitutional harmless-error provision some errors are not susceptible to the ordinary or generally applicable harmless-error analysis.

The kinds of errors that, regardless of the evidence, may result in a miscarriage of justice because they operate to deny a criminal defendant the constitutionally required orderly legal procedure all involve fundamental structural defects in the judicial proceedings.

Most errors are amenable to harmless error review because they can be quantitatively assessed in the context of other evidence presented.

Structural defects, on the other hand, defy analysis by harmless-error standards because they are not simply an error in the trial process, but rather an error affecting the framework within which the trial proceeds. A structural error requires per se reversal because it cannot be fairly determined how a trial would have been resolved if the grave error had not occurred.

Authority:

People v. Anzalone (2013) 56 Cal.4th 545, 553

People v. Lewis (2025) 111 Cal.App.5th 1078, 1111

Discretion, Duty of the court, Pleading, Probation Parole PRCS, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case 001023

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court erred in summarily denying the defendant’s motion filed under Franklin and Penal Code section 1203.01 for a hearing to set forth youth-related evidence for consideration at future parole hearings.

We conclude that the trial court erred by denying the defendant’s motion absent evidence that the defendant had past opportunities to present youth-related evidence and absent information regarding the substance of the evidence that the defendant intended to present.

We decline to issue an order that the trial court grant the request for a Franklin hearing. We simply direct the court to hold a proper hearing on the motion to determine whether a Franklin hearing is warranted.

First Holding:

Section 3051(a)(1) provides for a youth offender parole hearing by the Board of Parole Hearings for the purpose of reviewing the parole suitability of any prisoner who was 25 years of age or younger at the time of his or her controlling offense.

Section 4801(c) provides that, when a prisoner committed his or her controlling offense, as defined in section 3051(a), when he or she was 25 years of age or younger, the board, in reviewing a prisoner’s suitability for parole pursuant to section 3041.5, shall give great weight to the diminished culpability of youth as compared to adults, the hallmark features of youth, and any subsequent growth and increased maturity of the prisoner in accordance with relevant case law.

Authority:

PEN 3051

PEN 4801(c)

Second Holding:

In Franklin, the Supreme Court held a defendant who did not have an opportunity to make a record of mitigating youth-related factors relevant to a later youth offender parole hearing should have an opportunity to make a record on remand.

The court explained that sections 3051 and 4801 contemplate that information regarding the juvenile offender’s characteristics and circumstances at the time of the offense will be available at a youth offender parole hearing to facilitate the Board’s consideration. Assembling such statements about the individual before the crime is typically a task more easily done at or near the time of the juvenile’s offense rather than decades later when memories have faded, records may have been lost or destroyed, or family or community members may have relocated or passed away.

The Supreme Court remanded the matter to determine whether the defendant was afforded sufficient opportunity to make a record of information relevant to his eventual youth offender parole hearing, and if not, to allow the defendant to place on the record any documents, evaluations, or testimony (subject to cross-examination) that may be relevant at his eventual youth offender parole hearing, and the prosecution likewise may put on the record any evidence that demonstrates the juvenile offender’s culpability or cognitive maturity, or otherwise bears on the influence of youth-related factors.

Authority:

People v. Franklin (2016) 63 Cal.4th 261, 283-284

Third Holding:

In Cook, the Supreme Court held that a juvenile offender with a final judgment could move for a postjudgment proceeding under section 1203.01, to present evidence of youth-related factors. The Cook court reasoned that recognizing the court’s authority under section 1203.01 to gather youth offender evidence effectuates sections 3051 and 4801.

For inmates who seek to preserve evidence following a final judgment, the proper avenue is to file a motion in superior court under the original caption and case number, citing the authority of section 1203.01 and the Cook decision that establishes the inmate’s entitlement to a youth offender parole hearing and indicates when such hearing is anticipated to take place, or if one or more hearings have already occurred.

Consistent with Franklin and the court’s inherent authority, the offender shall have the opportunity to place on the record any documents, evaluations, or testimony (subject to cross-examination) that may be relevant at his eventual youth offender parole hearing, and the prosecution likewise may put on the record any evidence that demonstrates the juvenile offender’s culpability or cognitive maturity, or otherwise bears on the influence of youth-related factors.

Neither the passage of significant time, nor the fact that the defendant has had prior parole hearings is a bar to the court granting a Franklin hearing. The Legislature intended that the benefits of youth offender parole hearings be available even to those prisoners with decades-old convictions.

Authority:

PEN 1203.1

In re Cook (2019) 7 Cal.5th 439, 453, 458-459

People v. Benzler (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 743, 751

Fourth Holding:

We review the trial court’s denial of a Franklin proceeding for abuse of discretion. In deciding whether the trial court has abused its discretion we are required to ask whether the trial court’s findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence, whether its rulings of law are correct, and whether its application of the law to the facts was neither arbitrary nor capricious.

Critical to the resolution of this case, we note that when a trial court’s decision rests on an error of law, that decision is an abuse of discretion.

Authority:

People v. Benzler (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 743, 749

Fifth Holding:

The defendant’s motion contained sufficient information. Nothing in Cook indicates the motion bust describe with precision the vidence the offender seeks to introduce. The court’s commentary in Cook about what a motion should include is not the same as creating mandatory pleading requirements.

Courts have found there are no mandatory pleading requirements for a Franklin motion, and the required showing to initiate the process for a Franklin proceeding is minimal: due to the limited resources generally available to inmates, the Cook court reasonably envisioned a simple pleading mechanism to get the process started.

Authority:

People v. Howard (2021) 74 Cal.App.5th 141, 150

People v. Lipptrapp (2021) 59 Cal.App.5th 886, 896

Amelioration, Plea bargains, Sentencing

Case 000792

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court erred in denying the defendant’s petition for resentencing under section 1170(d), because (a) it incorrectly concluded that section 1171 barred resentencing where the original sentence was agreed on by the parties, and (b) it incorrectly believed that the parties had originally agreed to the sentence imposed. Reversed and remanded.

Because the trial court did not consider whether, despite the availability of youthful offender parole, the defendant’s determinate sentence is a de facto LWOP sentence, we leave that issue for the trial court to consider in the first instance.

First Holding:

Penal Code section 1171 [effective 1/1/2025] does not bar modification of plea agreements in resentencing. To the contrary, the section expressly authorizes modification after a plea. It states that, absent a more specific statutory rule, in a postconviction proceeding to modify a sentence pursuant to an ameliorative statute the court has jurisdiction to modify every aspect of the defendant’s sentence, including if it was imposed after a guilty plea.

The statute then provides that a plea bargain may not be rescinded based upon such modification: Any change to a sentence shall not be basis for a prosecutor or court to rescind a plea agreement. Thus, section 1171 expressly authorizes trial courts to modify sentences imposed after a plea bargain and prohibits rescission of bargains based on such modification. The trial court erred in ruling that section 1171 barred resentencing because of the defendant’s plea agreement

Authority:

PEN 1171(a), (c)(2) and (c)(3)

Second Holding:

Section 1170(d), under certain circumstances, provides for the recall and resentencing of juvenile offenders [who were tried as adults] with LWOP sentences.

(Gary note: without citation to published authority directly discussing this point, the unpublished opinion concludes that the use of the term “life without the possibility of parole” in section 1170(d) does not mention any specific statutes imposing LWOP sentences, such as section 190.5.

(This court infers from that lack of specificity that the Legislature must have intended that section 1170(d) apply whenever a candidate has received a sentence that, effectively, precludes parole in his or her lifetime. In other words, this unpublished opinion’s reasoning on this point is that section 1170(d), by its very terms, contemplates both express LWOP sentences and de facto LWOP sentences (sentences whose terms cannot be completed within a reasonable lifetime).

(The court states, “Thus, the Legislature appears to have intended section 1170(d) to be interpreted in a practical rather than technical manner to apply not only to formal LWOP sentences but also to de facto LWOP sentences that effectively render a juvenile offender ineligible for parole before they are expected to die.”

(Keep in mind that my description of this part of the holding is placed in a bracketed “Gary note,” and I may be oversimplifying and even misstating the court’s reasoning on this point. I simply thought it was an interesting approach that may prove useful.

(Also, the county’s District Attorney “invited” the Supreme Court to grant review on its own motion.  I suspect it is because the Attorney General actually represented the People in this appeal, and the DA would have had no standing to file a petition for review.  The Supreme Court has granted itself to a date in October 2026 to decide whether to grant review on its own motion.

(UPDATE OCTOBER 21, 2026:  The Supreme Court granted and held review on this case in September 2026.  “The court ordered briefing deferred pending decision in [another Supreme Court case already granted review], which presents the following issue: Is a juvenile homicide offender sentenced to 50 years to life in prison entitled to recall and resentencing under Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (d)(1) on the ground that the sentence is the functional equivalent of life imprisonment without parole?”

(I will try to follow that lead case and this case, and update when there is resolution.  I have signed up for notification on both the Court of Appeal case and the Supreme Court case once they are resolved.

(The issue on review in that other case pertains solely to functional equivalence of life without parole, and does not seem to address any impact of section 1170.1.)

Authority:

PEN 1170(d)(5)

Third Holding:

A practical interpretation of section 1170(d) is also supported by constitutional considerations. At least four Court of Appeal decisions have held that restricting resentencing under Section 1170(d) to juvenile offenders with formal LWOP sentences is irrational and violates equal protection, though others have disagreed.

Authority:

People v. Cabrera (2025) 111 Cal.App.5th 650, 653

People v. Sorto (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 435, 450-454

People v. Bagsby (2024) 106 Cal.App.5th 1040, 1054-1061

People v. Heard (2022) 83 Cal.App.5th 608, 631-634

Contra: People v. Baldwin (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 978, 1002-1006

Contra: People v. Thompson (2025) 112 Cal.App.5th 1058, 1075-1081, review granted Sept. 24, 2025, S292540

Fourth Holding:

Nonetheless, interpreting section 1170(d) to be limited to formal LWOP sentences plainly raises a serious constitutional question, and it is well-established that statutes should be construed to avoid constitutional questions where they are reasonably susceptible to a reasonable alternative interpretation that do not raise such questions. Accordingly, we conclude that section 1170(d) should be interpreted to apply to de facto as well as formal LWOP sentences.

Authority:

People v. Superior Court (Guevara) (2025) 18 Cal.5th 838, 862 [If a statute is susceptible of two constructions, one of which will raise serious and doubtful constitutional questions, the court will adopt the construction which, without doing violence to the reasonable meaning of the language used, will render it free from doubt as to its constitutionality.]

People v. Miracle (2018) 6 Cal.5th 318, 339 [A statute must be construed, if reasonably possible, in a manner that avoids a serious constitutional question.]

Fifth Holding:

The trial court held that the defendant was not serving a de facto LWOP sentence because he is eligible for youthful offender parole under section 3051 and, in fact, already has received a youthful offender parole hearing. We disagree. Youthful offender parole is available to all juvenile offenders with LWOP sentences, whether formal or not.

Moreover, the Legislature extended youthful offender parole hearings to juvenile offenders with LWOP sentences in 2017, five years after enacting section 1170(d). In so doing, the Legislature did not indicate that it intended to end resentencing for juvenile offenders with LWOP sentences under section 1170(d), and, as the Supreme Court has long recognized, absent an express declaration of legislative intent, we will find an implied repeal only when there is no rational basis for harmonizing the two potentially conflicting statutes.

Accordingly, in determining whether an individual was sentenced to imprisonment for life without the possibility of parole under section 1170(d), youthful offender parole should be disregarded.

Authority:

PEN 3051(b)(4)

People v. Hardin (2024) 15 Cal.5th 834, 845

Garris v. McCutchen (1997) 16 Cal.4th 469, 477

People v. Sorto (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 435, 447-448

People v. Bagsby (2024) 106 Cal.App.5th 1040, 1061

People v. Heard (2022) 83 Cal.App.5th 608, 628-629