People v. Franklin CA3

Filed 1/25/23 P. v. Franklin CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Yuba) ----

THE PEOPLE, C096191

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. CRF09-0000373) v. ORDER GRANTING JONATHAN SCOTT FRANKLIN, MOTION TO WAIVE ALL APPELLATE CLAIMS, Defendant and Appellant. REMAND MATTER TO THE TRIAL COURT, AND IMMEDIATELY ISSUE THE REMITTITUR

THE COURT:

The parties’ motion to: (1) waive all appellate claims; (2) remand the matter to the trial court for a compassionate release hearing conducted pursuant to the Penal Code section 1172.2;1 and (3) immediately issue the remittitur is granted.

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

In light of Assembly Bill No. 960 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.), which amended the framework for compassionate release effective January 1, 2023 (Stats. 2022, ch. 744, § 3), and added Penal Code section 1172.2, providing, in relevant part: “(a) Notwithstanding any other law and consistent with paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 1170, if the statewide chief medical executive, in consultation with other clinical executives, as needed, determines that an incarcerated person satisfies the medical criteria set forth in subdivision (b), the department shall recommend to the court that the incarcerated person’s sentence be recalled. [¶] (b) There shall be a presumption favoring recall and resentencing under this section if the court finds that the facts described in paragraph (1) or (2) exist, which may only be overcome if a court finds the defendant is an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety, as defined in subdivision (c) of Section 1170.18, based on the incarcerated person’s current physical and mental condition. [¶] (1) The incarcerated person has a serious and advanced illness with an end-of-life trajectory. Examples include, but are not limited to, metastatic solid-tumor cancer, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), end-stage organ disease, and advanced end- stage dementia.” Under section 1172.2, subdivision (k), defendant is also entitled to the appointment of counsel. It is undisputed that defendant Jonathan Scott Franklin has a serious and advanced illness with an end-of-life trajectory. We accept the Attorney General’s proper concession that considerations of judicial efficiency counsel in favor of applying the new statutory framework to this case. This court may reverse or modify a judgment pursuant to stipulation in accordance with the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 128, subdivision (a)(8). That section requires us to make specific findings: (1) “[t]here is no reasonable possibility that the interests of nonparties or the public will be adversely affected by the reversal”; and (2) “[t]he reasons . . . for requesting reversal outweigh the erosion of public trust that may result from the nullification of a judgment and the risk that the availability of stipulated reversal will reduce the incentive for pretrial settlement.” (Ibid.) Our authority to reverse