Miles v. Superior Court CA5

Filed 12/13/21 Miles v. Superior Court CA5 Opinion following transfer from Supreme Court

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

JIMMY LEE MILES, F082682 Petitioner, (Super. Ct. No. CF86342840) v.

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF FRESNO OPINION COUNTY,

Respondent;

THE PEOPLE,

Real Party in Interest.

THE COURT* ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for writ of mandate. Kristi Culver Kapetan, Judge. Jimmy Lee Miles, in pro. per.; and Byron C. Lichstein, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Petitioner. No appearance for Respondent. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Catherine Chatman and Erin Doering, Deputy Attorneys General, for Real Party in Interest. -ooOoo-

* Before Levy, Acting P.J., Franson, J. and Meehan, J.

INTRODUCTION Petitioner Jimmy Lee Miles has filed various petitions in this court and the California Supreme Court claiming that respondent, the Fresno County Superior Court, erroneously denied his request to take judicial notice of certain documents for his eventual youth parole eligibility hearing pursuant to People v. Franklin (2016) 63 Cal.4th 261 (Franklin). On August 25, 2021, the California Supreme Court issued an order, in part, for respondent superior court to show cause (returnable before this court) why a writ of mandate should not issue directing respondent to preserve for future parole eligibility consideration an appropriate copy of a report from the Department of Mental Health, Atascadero State Prison, dated December 11, 1984. This report is known as “the ‘Periodic Evaluation [of Petitioner]’ ” (the Periodic Evaluation). In its written return filed in this court, the People (real party in interest) concede it is appropriate for respondent superior court to preserve the Periodic Evaluation. We agree with that concession. We issue a preemptory writ of mandate directing respondent to preserve, for consideration by the Board of Parole Hearings (the Board), an appropriate copy of the Periodic Evaluation. BACKGROUND Miles is a prisoner serving an indeterminate term of life with the possibility of parole. Convicted and sentenced in 1986, he has been incarcerated since that time. Miles committed the underlying offense at the age of 23. (In re Miles (Dec. 17, 2020, F078091) [nonpub. opn.].) In April 2018, Miles petitioned respondent superior court for a writ of habeas corpus. He sought relief in the form of a Franklin proceeding to have an opportunity to make a record of information relevant to his eventual youth offender parole hearing. In August 2018, respondent granted the petition. The District Attorney then appealed to this