People v. Garcia CA3

Filed 12/17/21 P. v. Garcia CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sutter) ----

THE PEOPLE, C093120

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 44791B)

v.

DAVID RICHARD GARCIA,

Defendant and Appellant.

In 1990, defendant David Richard Garcia pleaded guilty to a murder he participated in when he was 21 years old and was sentenced to 25-years-to-life. In 2020, defendant petitioned the trial court to hold a hearing under People v. Franklin (2016) 63 Cal.4th 261 (Franklin) and Penal Code section 1203.11 to allow him to make a record of mitigating evidence tied to youth; the trial court denied defendant’s request.

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

Defendant appeals this denial, arguing he is entitled to such a hearing to prepare for a future youthful offender parole hearing. We affirm because defendant has already had a youthful offender parole hearing, so any Franklin proceeding is unlikely to produce fruitful evidence.

BACKGROUND On March 21, 1990, when defendant was 21 years old, defendant and two others entered a home, tied up the two residents, took property from the house and the residents, and then one of the residents was beat to death with a baseball bat. Defendant pleaded guilty to first degree murder. He was sentenced on August 31, 1990, to an indeterminate term of 25-years-to-life. Defendant has had several parole hearings since he was first incarcerated. The most recent hearing occurred on June 25, 2019. Prior to this hearing, defendant had submitted commendations from prison staff and support letters from other individuals. At the hearing, where defendant was represented by counsel, the parole board found defendant posed an unreasonable risk to public safety and was not suitable for parole at that time. The board noted it reviewed the evidence and documents received, defendant’s testimony, the factors under section 3051, subdivision (a), and took “into consideration [defendant is] a youthful offender.” For the latter consideration, this included “displaying immature thinking,” being “impulsive,” and “very vulnerable to negative influences,” so there “were definitely indications of the hallmark features of youth.” The board noted defendant has made improvement, has a “lot of . . . support letters,” and a lack of serious rule violations over the past eight years, but it found these circumstances are “outweigh[ed] by other circumstances tending to show unsuitability” for release, such as the viciousness of the crime and his continued involvement in gang related violence. The board then assessed a five-year denial length.