People v. Marroquin CA5

Filed 9/10/25 P. v. Marroquin CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, F089469 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. PCF305430) v.

NICOLAS ANDRES MARROQUIN, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tulare County. Juliet L. Boccone, Judge. Robert Navarro, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Kimberley A. Donohue, Assistant Attorney General, Darren K. Indermill and Catherine Tennant Nieto, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Snauffer, Acting P. J., De Santos, J., and Fain, J.†

† Judge of the Fresno Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.

In this third appeal from defendant Nicolas Andres Marroquin’s convictions for attempted murder and other offenses, we consider whether the trial court prejudicially erred by conducting his most recent resentencing hearing in his absence. The record shows Marroquin was not present and no valid waiver of his right to be present was obtained. Because he had a constitutional right to be personally present at the resentencing, and because the error here was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, we must again reverse and remand. BACKGROUND Marroquin was convicted by a jury of three counts of attempted murder and four counts of assault with a firearm, among other crimes, arising out of a gang-related shooting at a gas station. (People v. Marroquin (Mar. 16, 2020, F076530) [nonpub. opn.], 2020 WL 1242925, at p. 1 (Marroquin I).) The jury found true firearm enhancements under Penal Code1 sections 12022.5, subdivision (a)(1) and 12022.53, subdivision (c), as well as gang enhancements under section 186.22, subdivision (b). (Ibid.) He was sentence to 54 years to life in prison. (Id. at p. 2.) In 2020, we issued our opinion in Marroquin’s first appeal. We reversed his conviction under section 186.22, subdivision (a), for insufficient evidence. (Marroquin I, supra, at p. 1.) We vacated his sentence and remanded the matter for resentencing at which time the trial court was to exercise its then-new discretion to strike the sections 12022.5, subdivision (a)(1), and 12022.53, subdivision (c), firearm enhancements found true by the jury. (Marroquin I, at pp. 17–18.) We also directed that Marroquin be afforded the opportunity for a proceeding under People v. Franklin (2016) 63 Cal.4th 261 (Franklin) so he could present youth-related factors for use at a future youth offender parole hearing. (Marroquin I, at p. 18.)