People v. Paguada CA2/8

Filed 10/15/21 P. v. Paguada CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, B305782

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. YA019025) v.

MARVIN NAHUN PAGUADA,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Laura C. Ellison, Judge. Reversed. Lise M. Breakey, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, 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. ____________________

Marvin Nahun Paguada appeals the trial court’s denial of his postjudgment request for a Franklin proceeding. The prosecution agrees this proceeding was due. We reverse and remand for the requested proceeding. Statutory references are to the Penal Code. In 1994, Paguada pleaded guilty to two kidnapping counts (§ 209, subds. (a) & (b)) and admitted two firearm enhancements (§ 12022.5, subd. (a)). The trial court sentenced Paguada to two terms of life with the possibility of parole, plus consecutive four- year terms for the enhancements. Paguada was 21 years old when he committed the crimes. He claimed he “drank an unusual amount of alcohol” and was on drugs at the time. He had been using cocaine and speed daily. The probation report shows Paguada had no criminal history. It characterizes Paguada and his cohorts as “very unsophisticated and immature.” A detective described them as “the dumbest criminals he has ever faced” and opined the crimes were “a reaction against overly strict and sheltered upbringings.” Another officer said, “their boldness and stupidity [were] almost unbelievable.” In January 2020, Paguada, representing himself, moved for a limited remand under section 1203.01. Paguada sought to make a record of youth-related evidence for an eventual youth offender parole hearing. His motion invoked In re Cook (2019) 7 Cal.5th 439 (Cook) and People v. Franklin (2016) 63 Cal.4th 261 (Franklin). In Franklin, supra, 63 Cal.4th at pages 269 and 284, the Supreme Court recognized the right of youth offenders described by section 3051 to make a record of mitigating evidence tied to youth for later use in a youth offender parole hearing. Section