People v. Miranda CA2/8

Filed 9/12/22 P. v. Miranda CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, B316845 Plaintiff and Respondent, Los Angeles County v. Super. Ct. No. PA056316

HUMBERTO MIRANDA, Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, David W. Stuart, Judge. Reversed with directions.

Richard B. Lennon, 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, Assistant Attorney General, Noah P. Hill and Nima Razfar, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_______________________

In 2008, a jury convicted appellant of attempted murder, second degree robbery, assault with a firearm, and possession of a firearm by a felon. He was sentenced to a total of 59 years to life in prison. This sentence included a 25-year enhancement under the Three Strikes law. (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (b)-(j), 1170.12.) We previously affirmed the judgment. (People v. Miranda (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 398.) Appellant was 23 when he committed the crimes. But for the Three Strikes law enhancement, appellant would be considered a youthful offender entitled to a youthful offender parole hearing during the 25th year of his incarceration. (Pen. Code, § 3051, subd. (b)(3).) In 2021, he filed a motion seeking a Franklin hearing for the purpose of youthful offender parole consideration. (Pen. Code, § 3051; People v. Franklin (2016) 63 Cal.4th 261, 268 (Franklin); In re Cook (2019) 7 Cal.5th 439.) A Franklin hearing, usually held at the time of sentencing, preserves “youth-related factors, such as . . . cognitive ability, character, and social and family background at the time of the offense” for consideration in later determining a youthful offender’s suitability for parole. (Franklin, at p. 269.) The trial court summarily denied the motion, finding appellant ineligible to preserve such evidence because, as a third strike defendant, he was not eligible for a youthful offender parole hearing. This timely appeal followed. Both appellant and the People agree appellant is entitled to a Franklin hearing. We agree as well and reverse the trial court’s order. In doing so, we join our colleagues in the Fourth District in acknowledging that defendants 25 years old and younger are not entitled to youthful offender parole hearings if they have been convicted and sentenced under the Three Strikes