People v. Medeiros CA5

California Court of Appeal Sep 6, 2022 No. F083978Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant's motion for a Franklin hearing, as the court correctly determined the defendant had not been denied the opportunity to present youth-related evidence at sentencing and properly directed him to the appropriate post-judgment procedure.

Issues

Whether the trial court's denial of a request for a Franklin hearing without prejudice is an appealable order.
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying a request for a Franklin hearing that failed to cite the proper post-judgment authority.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The trial court’s decision was not an abuse of discretion.”

“The trial court’s denial of defendant’s request was not an abuse of discretion because it properly addressed the arguments presented in defendant’s request, denied the request, and afforded defendant “the opportunity to perfect his motion”

Filed 9/6/22 P. v. Medeiros 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, F083978 Petitioner and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 17CR-02846B) v.

RICHARD ALAN MEDEIROS, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Merced County. David W. Moranda, Judge. John F. Shuck, 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, Julie A. Hokans and Clara M. Levers, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Poochigian, Acting P. J., Franson, J. and Snauffer, J.

Defendant Richard Alan Medeiros pled no contest to attempted murder and admitted gang and firearm enhancements. Defendant was 20 years of age at the time he committed the offense. He was sentenced to a total term of 23 years in prison. Roughly two- and one-half years later, defendant requested a hearing pursuant to People v. Franklin (2016) 63 Cal.4th 261 (Franklin), to create a record of the features of his youth that contributed to the commission of his offense for use at an eventual youth offender parole hearing. The trial court denied the motion without prejudice. Defendant argues that decision was an abuse of discretion. The People disagree. We affirm. PROCEDURAL SUMMARY On May 31, 2017, the grand jury of Merced County returned an indictment, charging defendant with attempted murder (Pen. Code, §§ 664/187, subd. (a);1 count 1), shooting at an occupied motor vehicle (§ 246; count 2), and possession of a firearm by a person prohibited from possessing a firearm (§ 29820, subd. (b); count 4). As to count 1, the indictment further alleged defendant committed the offense for the benefit of a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(5)), and personally discharged a firearm causing great bodily injury (§ 12022.53, subds. (d), (e)(1)(A)). As to count 2, the indictment also alleged defendant committed the offense for the benefit of a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(4)(B)), and personally discharged a firearm causing great bodily injury (§ 12022.53, subds. (d), (e)(1)(A)). On April 30, 2019, pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, defendant pled no contest to count 1 and admitted the lesser gang (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(C)) and firearm (§ 12022.5) enhancements. In exchange, all remaining counts and allegations were dismissed, and the plea agreement specified a 23-year term of imprisonment.

People v. Medeiros CA5

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief