People v. Felix CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D081620 · 2023-07-26 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from an order
Trial court: Superior Court of Riverside County · No. SWF017408
Trial judge: F. Paul Dickerson III
Outcome: reversed — Reversed and remanded.
Area: criminal
Panel: Buchanan (author), Richard D. Huffman, Sr., Judith D. McConnell

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:31Z · confidence high

The trial court summarily denied defendant Felix's motion to reconsider his request for a youth offender evidence preservation proceeding under People v. Franklin. The Court of Appeal reversed and remanded, accepting the parties' agreement that Felix is entitled to such a proceeding to preserve mitigating evidence for a future parole hearing.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of motion to reconsider request for Franklin proceeding “In 2023, Felix moved the trial court to reconsider his Franklin motion, which the court summarily denied without explanation.”	unclear	error	agree with court The appellate court reversed the trial court's order, accepting the People's concession that Felix satisfies the criteria for a Franklin proceeding as established in In re Cook and People v. Franklin. The court found that Felix is eligible for a youth offender parole hearing and had not previously had the opportunity to present pertinent youth-related evidence, making the denial of the motion an error.

Authorities

relied: People v. Franklin (2016) 63 Cal.4th 261 — Defendants eligible for a future youth offender parole hearing are entitled to make a record of mitigating evidence tied to their youth to preserve it for use at such a future parole hearing.
relied: In re Cook (2019) 7 Cal.5th 439 — Lays out the criteria for a Franklin proceeding, including eligibility for a youth offender parole hearing and the lack of a prior opportunity to present pertinent youth-related evidence.
relied: People v. Howard (2021) 74 Cal.App.5th 141 — A Franklin proceeding allows youth offenders sentenced to long prison terms an opportunity to introduce into the record mitigating evidence relating to their youth.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is sound because it relies on the controlling Supreme Court decision in People v. Franklin and the specific criteria from In re Cook, which the parties agreed were met. The court correctly identified that the trial court's summary denial without explanation was improper given the defendant's entitlement to the post-judgment remedy.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

unusual disposition

A model's reading — claude-fable-5-1, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:30Z · confidence low

The Riverside County Superior Court summarily denied, without explanation, Fabian Felix's 2023 motion to reconsider his earlier request for a Franklin youth-offender evidence preservation proceeding under Penal Code section 1203.01. On appeal, the Attorney General conceded that Felix meets the In re Cook criteria, and the Court of Appeal accepted the concession, reversed the order, and remanded with directions to conduct a Franklin proceeding.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Summary denial of Felix's motion to reconsider his request for a Franklin evidence preservation proceeding under Penal Code section 1203.01 “We agree with the parties and accept the People’s concession.”	unclear	error (law misapplied)	agree with court Franklin holds that offenders eligible for a youth offender parole hearing under section 3051 are entitled to make a record of youth-related mitigating evidence, and Cook holds that an offender whose sentence is final may obtain that remedy by motion under section 1203.01 if he did not previously have an adequate opportunity to do so. The opinion states Felix was resentenced to 50 years to life before Franklin, presented no youth-related evidence at either sentencing, and is eligible under section 3051, subdivision (b)(3); on those facts the denial was contrary to Franklin and Cook. The opinion does not, however, state Felix's age at the time of the offense or address why an order denying reconsideration is appealable, so the result rests largely on the parties' agreement.

Authorities

relied: People v. Franklin (2016) 63 Cal.4th 261 — Defendants eligible for a youth offender parole hearing under section 3051 are entitled to an opportunity to make a record of youth-related mitigating evidence for use at that future hearing.
relied: In re Cook (2019) 7 Cal.5th 439 — An offender whose sentence is final may seek a Franklin evidence preservation proceeding by motion in the trial court under section 1203.01 if he is eligible for a youth offender parole hearing and did not previously have an adequate opportunity to present youth-related evidence.
relied: People v. Howard (2021) 74 Cal.App.5th 141 — A Franklin proceeding allows youth offenders sentenced to long prison terms an opportunity to introduce into the record mitigating evidence relating to their youth.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The result follows directly from Franklin and Cook once the People conceded that Felix is eligible under section 3051, subdivision (b)(3), and had no prior opportunity to present youth-related evidence, so the reversal is correct. The opinion nonetheless skips over the appealability of an order denying reconsideration of a previously denied 1203.01 motion and does not recite Felix's age at the time of the offense, relying on the concession rather than independently confirming eligibility.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 7/26/23 P. v. Felix CA4/1 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.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE, D081620

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SWF017408)

FABIAN FELIX,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Riverside County, F. Paul Dickerson, III, Judge. Reversed and remanded. Marilee Marshall, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney General, Christopher P. Beesley and Kristen Kinnaird Chenelia, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION1 Defendant Fabian Felix appeals the denial of his motion for a youth offender evidence preservation proceeding pursuant to People v. Franklin (2016) 63 Cal.4th 261 (Franklin). The parties agree that the case must be remanded for a Franklin proceeding. In 2010, Felix was convicted of first-degree murder with special circumstances and sentenced to life without the possibility of parole. After the special circumstances were reversed on appeal, he was resentenced to 50 years to life. Both the original sentencing and the resentencing occurred before the Supreme Court decided Franklin in 2016. In Franklin, the Supreme Court held that defendants eligible for a future youth offender parole hearing under Penal Code2 section 3051 are entitled to make a record of mitigating evidence tied to their youth to preserve it for use at such a future parole hearing. (Franklin, supra, 63 Cal.4th at pp. 283–284, 286.) “Broadly speaking, a Franklin proceeding allows youth offenders sentenced to long prison terms an opportunity to introduce into the record mitigating evidence relating to their youth.” (People v. Howard (2021) 74 Cal.App.5th 141, 145.) The record here does not include evidence related to Felix’s status as a youthful offender because he did not present youth-related mitigating evidence at his sentencing hearings, and he also declined to provide a statement or social history when interviewed by police. In 2018, after Franklin was decided, Felix filed a motion requesting a Franklin proceeding 1 We resolve this case by memorandum opinion because it “is determined by a controlling decision which does not require a reexamination or restatement of its principles or rules.” (Cal. Stds. Jud. Admin., § 8.1(2).)

2 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code. 2 pursuant to section 1203.01, which was denied. In 2023, Felix moved the trial court to reconsider his Franklin motion, which the court summarily denied without explanation.3 The parties agree that Felix satisfies the criteria for such a proceeding laid out in In re Cook (2019) 7 Cal.5th 439 (Cook), as he is eligible for a youth offender parole hearing under section 3051, subdivision (b)(3), and he did not previously have an opportunity to present pertinent youth-related evidence. The parties also agree that Felix is entitled to an opportunity to make an accurate record of his “characteristics and circumstances at the time of the offense so that the Board, years later, may properly discharge its obligation to ‘give great weight to’ youth-related factors,” and he may seek the post- judgment remedy of a Franklin proceeding even though his sentence is otherwise final. (Franklin, supra, 63 Cal.4th at p. 284; Cook, at p. 451.) We agree with the parties and accept the People’s concession. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s order denying reconsideration of Felix’s request for a Franklin proceeding and remand the matter for further proceedings.

3 Felix previously filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus seeking the relief he seeks on appeal here, which we denied as procedurally barred while this appeal was pending.

3 DISPOSITION The trial court’s order denying Felix’s motion to reconsider his previous request for a Franklin proceeding is reversed, and the matter is remanded with directions that the court conduct a Franklin evidence preservation proceeding.

BUCHANAN, J.

WE CONCUR:

McCONNELL, P. J.

HUFFMAN, J.

Cites, in this corpus

In re Cook S240153 · 2019-06-03
People v. Franklin S217699 · 2016-05-26