People v. Franklin CA3

Filed 9/23/25 P. v. Franklin CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Sacramento) ----

THE PEOPLE, C101815

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 01F02563)

v.

TIMOTHY PRINCE FRANKLIN,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Timothy Prince Franklin appeals from the trial court’s order denying his motion for issuance of an amended abstract of judgment. His counsel filed an opening brief setting forth the facts and procedure of the case and asking this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Franklin was advised by his counsel of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days from the date the opening brief was filed. More than 30 days have elapsed, and Franklin has not filed a supplemental brief.

1

Although this is not Franklin’s first appeal as of right, in the interest of judicial economy, we exercise our discretion to independently review the record. (People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216, 233, fn. 6 (Delgadillo).) Having done so, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to Franklin. Accordingly, we shall affirm the trial court’s order. BACKGROUND We described the underlying offenses in our decision in Franklin’s prior appeal, People v. Franklin (Dec. 14, 2006, C051778) [nonpub. opn.]: “In March 2001, a 14- year-old neighbor of defendant Timothy Prince Franklin let him into her home. When she dropped some coins onto the floor, defendant scooped them up. The girl reached for her coins, but he grabbed her legs, causing her to fall to the floor. Defendant then repeatedly pulled up the girl’s shirt, licked her breasts, pulled down her pants, licked her vagina, and put his penis in her vagina.” A jury found Franklin guilty of rape, sexual battery, and the commission of a lewd act on a 14-year-old victim. The jury further found Franklin had a prior strike and serious felony conviction and had served two prior prison terms. The trial court sentenced Franklin to an aggregate term of 32 years four months, calculated as follows: four years (doubled to eight years due to the strike) for sexual battery; 16 years (eight years doubled due to the strike) for rape, imposed consecutively pursuant to section 667.6; one year four months for the lewd act; plus five years for the prior serious felony and two years (one year each) for the prior prison terms. This court affirmed the judgment. (People v. Franklin (Aug. 22, 2003, C040922) [nonpub. opn.].) In 2005, the trial court granted Franklin’s habeas petition and ordered resentencing, finding that the court had improperly imposed a fully consecutive term under section 667.6, subdivision (d), which was not mandatory, and had failed to state a separate reason to support its discretionary choice of that term. (People v. Franklin,