People v. Rodriguez CA2/8

Filed 1/9/23 P. v. Rodriguez CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, B317972 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County v. Super. Ct. No. PA014564-01)

RAUL RODRIGUEZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Hayden Zacky, Judge. Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

Edward Mahler, 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 Kathy S. Pomerantz, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_______________________

Raul Rodriguez was convicted of murder (Pen. Code,1 § 187) in 1994. In 2020, he moved for a proceeding to present evidence related to a future youth offender parole hearing pursuant to People v. Franklin (2016) 63 Cal.4th 261 (Franklin) and section 1203.01. The court summarily denied his motion. We agree with the parties that Rodriguez is entitled to a Franklin hearing and remand the matter for that purpose. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In 1993, when Rodriguez was 17 years old, he shot and killed Jose Salavia. He received a sentence of 15 years to life after pleading guilty in 1994 to second degree murder. Acting in propria persona, Rodriguez filed a motion requesting a Franklin proceeding in November 2019. The trial court denied the motion without prejudice because it did not contain an offer of proof or a description of the types of evidence Rodriguez believed would be relevant to the motion. In December 2019, Rodriguez filed a second motion for a Franklin proceeding. The trial court denied this motion without prejudice, stating, “In this case, [Rodriguez’s] motion is nothing but a blanket assertion that he is entitled to a Franklin hearing 25 years after his conviction, without providing the court with an offer of proof, or a representation of the types of evidence that [Rodriguez] believes to be relevant for his motion.” The court further asserted that Rodriguez failed to indicate whether he had been afforded a parole hearing pursuant to section 3051, and, if he had in fact had a parole hearing, what the results were.