People v. Palaminos CA5

Filed 8/25/22 P. v. Palaminos CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THE PEOPLE, F082730 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. MCR025574) v.

ANTONIO PRECIADO PALAMINOS, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Madera County. Dale J. Blea, Judge. Rebecca P. Jones, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Darren K. Indermill and Catherine Tennant Nieto, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Detjen, Acting P. J., Peña, J. and Smith, J.

Defendant Antonio Preciado Palaminos appeals the post-judgment order denying his motion for a proceeding pursuant to Penal Code1 section 3051 and People v. Franklin (2016) 63 Cal.4th 261 (Franklin) to preserve evidence related to his youthfulness for the purpose of an eventual parole hearing. We dismiss the appeal. BACKGROUND On July 3, 2006, defendant killed an entire family when he hit their vehicle while he was driving intoxicated in a vehicle he had just stolen. According to defendant’s date of birth in the record, defendant was 26 years old at the time he committed the crimes. Following a court trial, he was convicted of five counts of murder, as well as multiple other counts, and the court sentenced him to 75 years to life (five consecutive terms of 15 years to life) on the murder counts, plus a four-year determinate term. In 2009, we affirmed the judgment on appeal in People v. Palaminos (Apr. 30, 2009, F054625) [nonpub. opn.]. On May 29, 2020, defendant filed a motion to augment the record to include mitigating evidence relating to youthful factors pursuant to section 3051 and Franklin, supra, 63 Cal.4th 261—in other words, a motion for a Franklin proceeding.2 In the motion, he asserted that he was 25 years of age or younger at the time of the offenses. After several continuances, on February 11, 2021, the trial court denied defendant’s motion for a Franklin proceeding.

1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code. 2 “Franklin processes are more properly called ‘proceedings’ rather than ‘hearings.’ A hearing generally involves definitive issues of law or fact to be determined with a decision rendered based on that determination. [Citations.] A proceeding is a broader term describing the form or manner of conducting judicial business before a court. [Citations.] While a judicial officer presides over a Franklin proceeding and regulates its conduct, the officer is not called upon to make findings of fact or render any final determination at the proceeding’s conclusion. Parole determination are left to the Board [of Parole Hearings].” (In re Cook (2019) 7 Cal.5th 439, 449, fn. 3 (Cook).)