People v. Whitlock CA1/5

Filed 2/5/21 P. v. Whitlock CA1/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

THE PEOPLE, A159526 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Mendocino County v. Super. Ct. No. 10076) CAMERON NEIL WHITLOCK, Defendant and Appellant.

Cameron Neil Whitlock contends the trial court erred in declining to accept letters and statements from his family and friends for purposes of a post-conviction proceeding to preserve evidence relevant to a youth offender parole hearing. (Pen. Code, § 3051; see People v. Franklin (2016) 63 Cal.4th 261, 284 (Franklin); In re Cook (2019) 7 Cal.5th 439, 451-453 (Cook).)1 The People agree that the trial court erred with respect to some of the evidence but also argue that two documents should be excluded. We conclude the court should have admitted all of the documents and reverse.

All references in this opinion to Franklin/Cook proceedings are to 1

proceedings pursuant to People v. Franklin, supra, 63 Cal.4th 261, and In re Cook, supra, 7 Cal.5th 439. Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. 1

BACKGROUND A. Inmates who were 25 years of age or younger at the time they committed an offense may be eligible for parole in their 15th, 20th, or 25th year of imprisonment, depending on the sentence and other factors. (§ 3051, subd. (a)(1), (b)(1)-(3).) In considering a youth offender’s suitability for parole under section 3051, the Board of Parole Hearings (“Board”) “shall give great weight to the diminished culpability of juveniles as compared to adults, the hallmark features of youth, and any subsequent growth and increased maturity of the prisoner in accordance with relevant case law.” (§ 4801, subd. (c).) In Franklin, supra, 63 Cal.4th 261, and Cook, supra, 7 Cal.5th 439, our Supreme Court explained that youthful offenders may request a post- conviction proceeding in the trial court to create a record that the Board can later use at the parole hearing. The purpose of a Franklin/Cook proceeding in the trial court is to preserve evidence of the offender’s youthful character and relevant circumstances at the time of the offense, while it is still available and fresh, given that the Board’s parole hearing may not take place for decades. (Franklin, supra, 63 Cal.4th at pp. 283-284.) Although the court has discretion to conduct the proceeding efficiently by excluding evidence that is irrelevant or cumulative (Cook, supra, 7 Cal.5th at p. 459), the trial court’s primary role is to assemble the record for the Board’s later use, not to make factual findings or weigh the evidence’s credibility. (Id. at p. 457.) The trial court must thereafter transmit the record to the Board. (Id. at pp. 453, 459.)