People v. Calderon CA5

Filed 5/16/23 P. v. Calderon 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, F084833 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. VCF239260) v.

MIGUEL CALDERON, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Tulare County. Melinda Myrle Reed, Judge. David Y. Stanley, 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, Michael A. Canzoneri, and Barton Bowers, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Hill, P. J., Detjen, J. and Franson, J.

Defendant Miguel Calderon pursued this appeal for the opportunity to participate in a hearing authorized by People v. Franklin (2016) 63 Cal.4th 261, commonly referred to as a Franklin hearing. Recently, this court learned defendant was granted a Franklin hearing by the trial court. Therefore, because the issue presented is now moot, defendant’s appeal is dismissed. BACKGROUND On June 22, 2011, a jury found defendant guilty of six counts of attempted murder (Pen. Code,1 §§ 187, subd. (a), 664), and one count of firing into an inhabited dwelling (§ 246). The jury also found true various enhancements that had been alleged in the information. Defendant was sentenced for these convictions to 120 years to life in prison.2 However, following a reversal of the judgment and a remand for resentencing by this court, defendant was resentenced to a term of 55 years to life. In July 2022, defendant filed with the trial court a petition to dismiss all firearm enhancements, and a request for a Franklin hearing. On August 2, 2022, the court denied defendant’s request to dismiss his firearm enhancements, stating his conviction was already final when the relevant legislative changes were made for such relief. However, in that same order, the court also denied defendant’s request for a Franklin hearing, without prejudice, referencing a prior ruling of the court. A notice appealing that order was filed on August 17, 2022. In his opening brief, defendant only challenges the trial court’s denial of his request for a Franklin hearing. In response, the People acknowledged this matter should