People v. Magana CA2/5

California Court of Appeal Jan 20, 2021 No. B300733Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a defendant with a final conviction may move for a Franklin proceeding under Penal Code section 1203.01, and that a prior opportunity to present youth-related mitigating evidence does not bar such a motion. The trial court must exercise its informed discretion to determine whether to grant the motion and the appropriate scope of any such proceeding.

Issues

Whether a prior opportunity to present youth-related mitigating evidence precludes a defendant from filing a motion for a Franklin proceeding under Penal Code section 1203.01.
Whether the trial court has discretion to determine the scope of a Franklin proceeding or must grant the motion as requested.

Disposition. Reversed and remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“We will accordingly reverse the order denying defendant’s motion and remand for the trial court to exercise its discretion as described in Franklin and Cook.”

Filed 1/20/21 P. v. Magana CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE

THE PEOPLE, B300733

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA416716) v.

JOSE JAVIER MAGANA,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Douglas Sortino, Judge. Reversed and remanded with directions. Steven A. Brody, 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, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Noah P. Hill, Supervising Deputy

Attorney General, and Nima Razfar, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Defendant Jose Magana (defendant) appeals from an order denying his motion for a youth offender evidence preservation proceeding under People v. Franklin (2016) 63 Cal.4th 261 (Franklin), People v. Cook (2019) 7 Cal.5th 439 (Cook), and Penal Code1 section 1203.01. The Attorney General concedes the trial court erred in concluding it did not have authority to entertain defendant’s motion, but defendant and the Attorney General disagree about the appropriate remedy. We consider whether the case should be remanded with instructions to grant the motion (defendant’s position) or remanded to allow the trial court to consider the motion and exercise its informed discretion in deciding whether to grant it (the Attorney General’s position).

I. BACKGROUND Defendant was convicted of two counts of attempted premeditated murder, two counts of assault with a deadly weapon, and one count of aggravated mayhem. The jury found true special allegations that defendant inflicted great bodily injury, personally used a deadly weapon, and committed the crimes for the benefit of a criminal street gang. Defendant was 18 years old at the time of the offense conduct. The trial court sentenced defendant to a total of 38 years to life in prison on the attempted murder counts.2

People v. Magana CA2/5

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

THE PEOPLE, B300733

JOSE JAVIER MAGANA,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

BAKER, J.

RUBIN, P. J.

MOOR, J.

AI Brief