People v. Patterson CA1/1

Filed 11/8/23 P. v. Patterson CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, A167784 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Alameda County Super. Ct. v. No. H56262A) AYODELE PATTERSON, Defendant and Appellant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 After a jury trial in 2016, appellant Ayodele Patterson was found guilty of the first-degree murder of 80-year-old Carolyn June Pavon during a home invasion robbery in June 2010. Patterson was 17 years old at the time of the crime. He was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole (LWOP) in November 2018. We subsequently affirmed Patterson’s convictions on appeal. (People v. Patterson (Sept. 8, 2020, A156047) [nonpub. opn.].) On January 31, 2023, Patterson filed a pro per motion in the trial court requesting a “Franklin hearing”—i.e., a proceeding where youthful offenders can make a record to preserve evidence for an eventual parole hearing.

1 We resolve this case by memorandum opinion pursuant to California

Standards of Judicial Administration, section 8.1. All statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

(People v. Franklin (2016) 63 Cal.4th 261 (Franklin); People v. Delgado (2022) 78 Cal.App.5th 95, 98–99, fn.1.) Patterson submitted a declaration that he was born in August 1992,2 and that he had never been afforded the opportunity to place youth-related sentencing factors on the record, either at his November 2018 sentencing hearing or thereafter. On March 2, 2023, the trial court denied the request, reasoning that Franklin proceedings are not available to defendants like Patterson, whose sentences foreclose the possibility of parole. Patterson timely appealed. As the Attorney General concedes, the trial court was mistaken. The Supreme Court held in Franklin, supra, 63 Cal.4th 261, that the 16-year-old offender—who was sentenced to an indeterminate sentence of 50 years to life—was entitled under newly enacted sections 3051 and 4081 to a parole hearing during his 25th year in prison. (Franklin, at p. 276.) Under the circumstances, the Supreme Court remanded the matter, holding that if Franklin had not previously been given the “opportunity to make a record of information relevant to his eventual youth offender parole hearing,” he should be allowed to “place on the record any documents, evaluations, or testimony (subject to cross-examination) that may be relevant” to such a hearing. (Franklin, at p. 284.) The proper procedure for requesting a Franklin proceeding after a judgment of conviction is final is to file a motion in the superior court under the same caption and case number, citing the authority of section 1203.1 and In re Cook (2019) 7 Cal.5th 439 (Cook). (See People v. Howard (2021) 74 Cal.App.5th 141, 150 (Howard).) Pursuant to section 3051: “A person who was convicted of a controlling offense that was committed before the person had attained 18 years of age and