People v. Bolanos CA2/6

Filed 2/18/21 P. v. Bolanos CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIX

THE PEOPLE, 2d Crim. No. B301976 (Super. Ct. No. BA076004) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County)

v.

OSCAR BOLANOS,

Defendant and Appellant.

Oscar Bolanos appeals a superior court order denying his motion for a Franklin hearing (People v. Franklin (2016) 63 Cal.4th 261) following his conviction for voluntary manslaughter. (Pen. Code, § 192, subd. (a).)1 We conclude, among other things, that Bolanos is not entitled to a Franklin hearing. We affirm.2

1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code.

As the parties note, this was initially a Wende appeal. 2

(People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) After our independent review of the record, we determined Bolanos had raised arguable issues in his in propria persona trial court brief and that he was

FACTS On January 26, 2018, Bolanos pled guilty to voluntary manslaughter. He admitted that he used a firearm in the commission of the offense. (§ 12022.5, subd. (a).) The trial court sentenced him to an aggregate 15-year state prison term. He received the high term of 11 years for the voluntary manslaughter conviction plus a consecutive “four years for the [section] 12022.5 allegation found to be true.” On September 16, 2019, Bolanos filed a “notice of motion and motion for [a] baseline hearing pursuant to People v. Franklin.” He alleged he was 24 years old at the time he committed the offense. He claimed that because he was a youth offender under the age of 25 at the time of the offense, he was entitled to a Franklin hearing to present evidence of his “youth characteristics and immaturity at the time of the offense [that] may be available at his eventual parole hearing.” By citing section 3051, he essentially contended that he could use the evidence presented at a Franklin court hearing at a youth offender parole hearing. The trial court denied the motion. It ruled that Bolanos “does not fall within the scope of Franklin or the cases that follow, therefore, the request is denied.” DISCUSSION The Right to a Franklin Hearing In People v. Franklin, supra, 63 Cal.4th at page 269, our Supreme Court held that youthful offenders are entitled to a trial court determination whether they were given “adequate opportunity at sentencing to make a record of mitigating evidence