People v. Owens CA3

Filed 12/18/20 P. v. Owens CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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,

Plaintiff and Respondent, C091455

v. (Super. Ct. No. 05F02095)

CLAUDE OWENS,

Defendant and Appellant.

In 2005, defendant Claude Owens pleaded guilty to shooting at an occupied dwelling (Pen. Code, § 246)1 and admitted personally discharging a handgun in the commission of the offense (§ 12022.53, subd. (d)). He was 17 years old when he committed the crime. The trial court sentenced him to a determinate term of three years for the shooting and an indeterminate term of 25 years to life for the firearm enhancement.

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

In 2019, representing himself, defendant filed a petition asking the trial court to recall his sentence, strike the firearm enhancement pursuant to Senate Bill No. 620 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.), and provide him with a hearing under People v. Franklin (2016) 63 Cal.4th 261 (Franklin) to supplement the record with evidence relevant to a future youth offender parole hearing. Defendant’s request for a Franklin hearing cited Senate Bill No. 260 (2013-2014 Reg. Sess.) and sections 3051 and 4801, stating he was 17 when he committed the crime, he was sentenced to a term of 28 years to life, and he had no prior opportunity at his sentencing to include evidence relevant to a youth offender parole hearing. The trial court denied the petition. It denied the Senate Bill No. 620 request on the ground that the change in the law does not apply retroactively to defendant’s final judgment. And it denied the request for a Franklin hearing without prejudice, stating that under In re Cook (2019) 7 Cal.5th 439, 452 (Cook), the proper approach is for defendant to file a section 1203.01 motion in the trial court. DISCUSSION Defendant’s sole contention on appeal is that the trial court should have treated his petition as a motion for a Franklin hearing and granted the motion. The Attorney General agrees. A Effective January 1, 2014, Senate Bill No. 260 added, among other provisions, section 3051. (Stats. 2013, ch. 312, § 4; Franklin, supra, 63 Cal.4th at p. 276.) With certain exceptions not applicable here, former section 3051 provided an opportunity for an offender who was under 18 years of age at the time of the offense to be released on parole irrespective of the sentence imposed by the trial court. It required the Board of Parole Hearings to conduct a youth offender parole hearing on a set schedule depending on the length of the prisoner’s sentence. For example, for a sentence of 25 years to life, the hearing would be held during the 25th year of incarceration. (Former § 3051,