People v. Denson CA2/8

Filed 7/14/21 P. v. Denson CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT

THE PEOPLE, B306605

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA377814) v.

MARCUS DENSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Charlaine F. Olmedo, Judge. Reversed and remanded. Karyn H. Bucur, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Matthew Rodriguez, Acting Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant Attorney General, Stephanie C. Brenan and Toni R. Johns Estaville, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. __________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION In 2013, Marcus Denson pled guilty to two counts of attempted murder and one count of voluntary manslaughter with gang enhancements. On January 14, 2016, he was sentenced to a determinate term of 25 years and eight months. At the time of his crimes in 2010, he was 18 years old. In November 2019, Denson filed a motion for a youth 1 offender proceeding pursuant to Penal Code section 1203.01 and People v. Franklin (2016) 63 Cal.4th 261 (Franklin). The trial court denied it for three reasons: (1) Denson’s guilty plea “waived” his right to a Franklin proceeding and he was not permitted to “trifle with the courts by attempting to better his bargain”; (2) Denson was given a determinate sentence, so he was “not entitled to a Franklin hearing on the merits”; and (3) the motion was untimely because Denson “failed to explain and justify the significant delay in seeking habeas relief,” which the court measured as the time between Denson’s 2013 guilty plea and 2016 sentencing and his 2019 Franklin motion. Denson appeals the denial of his motion. The Attorney General concedes the trial court erred by denying the motion and Denson is, in fact, entitled to a Franklin proceeding. We agree 2 with the parties and reverse.