People v. Baker CA3

Filed 4/18/25 P. v. Baker CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (San Joaquin) ----

THE PEOPLE, C100823

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. Nos. STK-CR-FE- 2011-0005672, SF117345A) v.

RICKEY RENARD BAKER,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Rickey Renard Baker filed a motion for evidence preservation under Penal Code1 section 1203.01 and People v. Franklin (2016) 63 Cal.4th 261 (Franklin); he also requested appointment of counsel. The trial court denied defendant’s motion without explanation. The parties agree this was error because defendant’s motion was

1 Undesignated section references are to the Penal Code.

1

sufficiently pled to initiate a hearing under section 1203.01. We reverse the trial court’s order and remand the matter for further proceedings. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In May 2012, defendant pled guilty to two counts of kidnapping, one count of rape in concert with the use of a firearm, one count of forced oral copulation, and two counts of second degree robbery. Pursuant to the plea agreement, the trial court sentenced defendant to a determinate term of 25 years.2 In February 2024, defendant, while incarcerated, filed a motion titled “[m]otion for evidence preservation proceeding under . . . [section] 1203.01 in addition, for appointment of counsel” under the original trial court caption and case number. The motion provided that defendant sought “evidence preservation proceedings under . . . [section] 1203.01” to “make [a] record of mitigating youth-related evidence existing at the time of his commitment offences, and to correct the record transmit[ted] to [the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation with] respect to [defendant].” Defendant further requested appointment of counsel “to represent him for his Franklin hearing.” (Italics added.) In the motion, defendant alleged he was 23 years old at the time of his offenses, eligible for early release parole consideration under sections 3051 and 4801, and due to appear before the Board of Parole Hearings no later than April 2025. Defendant further alleged he could not have “foreseen the future changes in law that made him eligible for review” under sections 3051 and 4801 and pointed to his “diminished culpability” as a youth at the time of his offenses. Therefore, defendant argued, “[H]e was not offered the opportunity to establish and preserve for the record his diminished culpability related to