People v. Thompson CA2/1

California Court of Appeal Sep 30, 2020 No. B300849Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the denial of the defendant's motion for a Franklin proceeding because the defendant failed to establish his eligibility for a youth offender parole hearing by omitting his age at the time of the offense and the status of his parole hearing in his motion.

Issues

Whether a defendant seeking a Franklin proceeding must affirmatively establish their eligibility for a youth offender parole hearing in their motion.
Whether the trial court is required to search the record to verify a defendant's eligibility for a Franklin proceeding when the defendant fails to provide the necessary information in their motion.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Thompson did not state his age at the time he committed the “controlling offense” and thus failed to establish his entitlement to a youth offender parole hearing.”

“Nor does Thompson state when a youth offender parole hearing in his case is anticipated or if any hearings have occurred.”

“It is not the duty of the trial court to search outside the record to possibly find omitted information.”

Filed 9/30/20 P. v. Thompson CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

THE PEOPLE, B300849

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. MA037159) v.

RAYMOND ANDREW THOMPSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Denise McLaughlin-Bennett, Judge. Affirmed. ________________________________

Adrian K. Panton, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant Attorney General, Scott A. Taryle and Colleen M. Tiedemann, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

________________________________

Raymond Andrew Thompson appeals from an order denying his motion under Penal Code1 section 1203.01 for a hearing to be held pursuant to People v. Franklin (2016) 63 Cal.4th 261 (Franklin). For the reasons given below, we affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY On March 19, 2007, Thompson pleaded no contest to one count of attempted murder. (§§ 187, 664.) He also admitted that he personally used a firearm in the commission of the crime (§ 12022.5, subd. (a)), and that the crime was committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(C)). The court accepted the plea and sentenced Thompson to 18 years in prison. On July 22, 2019, Thompson filed a document in the superior court titled, “Penal Code 1203.01 Motion Pursuant to In re Cook (June 3, 2019, S240153 Cal.5th).” Thompson requested a hearing under Franklin for the purpose of creating a record of youth-related mitigating factors to be available for use at a youth offender parole hearing. On August 5, 2019, the court denied the motion. Among other reasons, the court stated that Thompson failed to indicate why he is entitled to relief under In re Cook (2019) 7 Cal.5th 439 (Cook). Thompson timely appealed.

People v. Thompson CA2/1

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

THE PEOPLE, B300849

RAYMOND ANDREW THOMPSON,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

CHANEY, J.

AI Brief