Franklin Hearing for youth offender : People v. Benzler (12/2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 743

Case Name: People v. Benzler (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 743, District: 3 DCA, Case #: C092779 Opinion Date: 12/21/2021 

FRANKLIN HEARING (in General): 

A Franklin hearing is a supplemental sentencing hearing for defendants who were convicted for a controlling offense when they were under 26 years of age (Youth Offender in California). The hearing gives these inmates an opportunity to provide additional mitigating evidence related to their youth to the court. Franklin proceeding: the purpose of which is to allow the offender to assemble evidence at or near the time of the crime rather than years later when it may prove difficult to reconstruct. That evidence can then be used by the Board of Parole Hearings (BPH a.k.a. BPT) when it holds the eventual Youth Offender Parole Hearing (YOPH).

NOTE: The Public Defender will normally do the Franklin Hearing for the inmate. Different Counties execute this process differently. On occasion a Psychologist or a Social Worker will interview the inmate and/or the family to gather background information. A report will be produced and attached to a Motion for a Franklin Hearing, filed with the Court. If your Love One was a Youth Offender, s/he may qualify for this hearing. Call the Local Public Defender for free representation.  You can also hire a private attorney but it seems like the Public Defender for a specific County may have more free resources at their disposal to assist.

The name for a Franklin hearing comes from the California Supreme Court case, People v. Tyris Lamar Franklin. 

 Evidence provided during Franklin Hearings (FH) often deal with the inmates’: 

1.      young age at the time of the offense and related factors, 
2.      upbringing and any negative influences in the defendant’s early years, 
3.      mental and emotional state, 
4.      maturity, 
5.      juvenile record, 
6.      ability to understand that the offense was wrong, 
7.      diminished culpability, when compared to adults, 
8.      hallmark features of youth at the time of the offense, and 
9.      subsequent growth and increased maturity while in prison 

============================================================= 
 
CASE HOLDING: 

Trial court erred in summarily denying defendant’s petition for a Franklin proceeding, as it set forth a prima facie case for a hearing. In 2011, when defendant was 18 years old, he killed the victim. The jury hung on whether defendant committed second degree murder and he pleaded guilty to voluntary manslaughter. “In 2020, defendant filed a ‘Motion for Franklin Hearing’ in the trial court, under the original caption and case number, seeking a Franklin hearing under [Pen. Code] section 1203.01, and citing [In re Cook (2019) 7 Cal.5th 439].” The request was summarily denied. Defendant appealed. Held: Reversed. 

Senate Bill No. 260 (effective 1/1/2014), created statutes regarding parole eligibility for offenders who committed their crimes at a young age. The statutes have been amended to apply to offenders who were under the age of 26 at the time of the offense. “In Cook, our Supreme Court explained the proper avenue to seek a Franklin proceeding for a final conviction is through a motion under section 1203.01,” bearing the original caption and case number. Defendant “was sentenced before section 3051 had been extended to his age group and before Franklin was decided, and thus had no opportunity or reason to place the relevant information on the record. This made him eligible for a Franklin proceeding,” the purpose of which is to allow the offender to assemble evidence at or near the time of the crime rather than years later when it may prove difficult to reconstruct. 

“Here, defendant’s motion met the initial requirements for eligibility.” There is no evidence defendant has had an opportunity to place evidence relevant to a Franklin hearing on the record, and the passage of time since his conviction cannot be the sole reason for disqualifying him from a Franklin proceeding, absent affirmative evidence supporting disqualification on this ground. The trial court did not provide any rationale for denying defendant’s motion, so there is no indication why it felt defendant was ineligible for a hearing. The denial of defendant’s motion was reversed. 

===============================================================

The full opinion may still be available on the court’s website: 

https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/C092779.PDF 

 

A Big Thank you to CCAP for the summary of People v. Benzler case. It is re-published here for education purpose.

Elderly Parole law AB3234: new Regulations for Elderly Parole finally enacted [by BPH] under 15 CCR 2449.40

Even though the Elderly Parole law AB3234 became effective last year. BPH is finally getting around to enacting Sections 2449.40 - 2449.43 [of Title 15], governing parole consideration hearings for elderly inmates. 

It may take CDCR a while to review all the inmates that qualify under AB3234 Elderly Law becasue CDCR recently received the Regulations from the Board Of Parole Hearings (BPH). 

The important sections of the new regulations enumerating the Elderly Inmate Factors are under Section 2449.43. The factors will be given Special Considerations during the Elderly Parole Hearings.

They are in summary as follows: 

§ 2449.43. Elderly Inmate Factors. 

 (a) Age. Consideration of an elderly inmate’s age includes the following: 

(1) Cognitive decline and its impact on an elderly inmate’s ability to process information, convert thought to action, the ability to learn, the ability to plan, recall or reorganize information, organize information, control impulses, execute a task, incorporate feedback, alter a strategy, sustain complex attention, or to calm down when emotionally aroused; 

 (2) Physiological changes that decrease the motivation to commit crime or be violent. 

 (b) Time Served. The impact of long term confinement of elderly inmates includes, consideration of the following: 

 (1) Reduced criminal propensity; 

(2) Alteration of attitudes and beliefs over time; 

(3) Evidence of prosocial routines; 

 (4) Social conformity; 

 (5) Detachment from crime producing environments and peers. 

(c) Diminished Physical Condition. The diminished physical condition of elderly inmates includes, consideration of the following: 

(1) The capability of an inmate to physically commit crimes and violence; 

(2) Chronic or terminal illness; 

 (3) Evidence of sensory impairment due to visual, hearing or speech impairment; 

 (4) Inability to ambulate or difficulty in ambulating without an ambulation assistive device; 

(5) Nursing Care Acuity; 

 (6) Diminished mental capacity; 

(7) Assistance with daily living activities that includes but is not limited to, feeding, bathing, dressing, grooming, work, homemaking, or communication; 

(8) Permanent incapacitation due to medical, physical, or mental health condition, or any other condition that results in permanent incapacitation; and 

 (9) Other evidence of diminished physical condition. 

=================================================================

PENDING CHANGES TO THE BOARD OF PAROLE HEARINGS DEPARTMENT REGULATIONS can be seen at: the CDCR website

 

Pursuant to the requirements of Government Code section 11346.8 (c). and section 44 of Title I of the California Code of Regulations, the Board of Parole Hearings is providing notice of changes made to Regulation Number 21-04, proposed sections 2449.40, 2449.41, 2449.42, and 2449.43. Additionally. pursuant to the requirements of Government Code sections 11346.8( d). 11346. 9( a)( 1), and 11347.1. the Board of Parole Hearings is providing notice of the addition of a document to the rulemaking file to make available for public comment and inspection. 

The document added to the rulemaking file is as follows: 

Supplement to the Initial Statement of Reasons  

Regulatory Text Document is available for public inspection at the Board's office located at 1515 K street, 6th Floor, Sacramento. California 95814, from March 10, 2022, through March 25. 2022 between the hours of 9:00 AM and 5:00 PM. This document is also available to view on the board's website at: Regulatory Changes - Board of Parole Hearings (ca.gov). 

If you have any comments regarding the proposed changes or the Supplement to the Initial Statement of Reasons. the Board will accept written and electronic email comments between March 11, 2022 and March 25, 2022. 

All written and electronic email comments must be submitted to the Board no later than March 25, 2022, and addressed to: 

Chancellor Veal, Staff Attorney 
Board of Parole Hearings 
P.O. Box 4036 Sacramento, CA 95812-4036 
E-mail: BPH.Regulations@cdcr.ca.gov 

All written comments received by March 25,2022, which pertain to the indicated changes or the Supplement to the Initial Statement of Reasons will be reviewed and responded to by the Board's staff as part of the compilation of the rule making file. Please limit your comments to the modifications to the text and the Supplement to the Initial Statement of Reasons.

People v. Williams (2021) 71 Cal.App.5th 1029: Parole Revocation Report required for a Lifer who Violates Parole

Case Name: People v. Williams (2021) 71 Cal.App.5th 1029, District: 1 DCA , Division: 1 , Case #: A159914 Opinion Date: 11/23/2021

A big Thank You to the CCAP folks who review and summarize many of the Appellate cases. The Case Holding below is from CCAP and reproduce here for Education Purpose.

This case is specific to Lifers who violate Parole after being release to the free community. Yes, this happens! (but not too often).  All Parole Revocation Hearings are no longer done in the county jail by Commissioners, they are reviewed in Court with the District Attorney having the choice to file a Revocation Petition. As of 2013, the BPH no longer adjudicate revocation proceeding but as a LIFER, BPH still controls the case.

If  the  parolee  is  subject  to  Life  parole  under  sections  3000(b)(4)  and  3000.1  for  murder  or  designated  sex  offenses,  and  the  court  finds  the  parolee  has  violated the law or a condition of parole, the parolee "shall be remanded to the custody of  [CDCR]   and   the   jurisdiction   of   the   [BPH]   for   the   purpose   of   future   parole  consideration."    (§  3000.08(h).)    Thereafter  the  BPH  will  schedule  a  hearing  within  12  months to determine parole eligibility.  (§ 3000.1(d).). These hearing are known as Reconsideration Hearings within BPH (a.k.a. PC 3000). They are held every year and not subject to Marsy’s Law, which have the 3 to 15 year denial periods, at a Parole Suitability Hearing.
======================================================

Here the  Parolee was no longer in Custody. The Court chose to make a ruling; Hence, exercised its discretion to address the merits because the issue is of continuing public interest and likely to recur yet evade appellate review.

 Case Holding: Even where imprisonment is mandatory following a parole violation by a person serving a life term, the court must obtain the parole agency's written report under Penal Code section 1203.2, subdivision (b)(1).

Defendant was on parole from a life term sentence. He was found in violation of parole and remanded to prison, as required by Penal Code section 3000.08, subdivision (h). On appeal, defendant argued the trial court erred in refusing to refer the matter to the parole agency for a written report (Pen. Code, § 1203.2, subd. (b)(1)) before ruling on the revocation petition.

 Held: Appeal dismissed as moot, but merits reached. Where a parole revocation petition is filed by the parole agency, section 3000.08, subdivision (f) requires that the petition be accompanied by “a written report that contains additional information regarding the petition, including the relevant terms and conditions of parole, the circumstances of the alleged underlying violation, the history and background of the parolee, and any recommendations.”

 Where, as here, the revocation petition is filed by the prosecutor, a report need not accompany the petition. However, a report is still required. Under section 1203.2, subdivision (b)(1), once the court receives a revocation petition filed by the district attorney, it must refer the petition to the parole agency for a written report, and it must consider that report before ruling on the petition. The statute contains no exception for inmates serving life sentences. Although section 3000.08, subdivision (h) makes revocation mandatory if the court finds a lifetime parolee has violated parole, requiring a report in the case of lifetime parolees is not absurd or pointless. While the court cannot dismiss the petition, it is conceivable that the contents of the report could persuade the district attorney to withdraw the petition. The report also includes other background information that might assist in the trial court's determination whether parole was violated.

 

 The full opinion is available on the court's website here: https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/A159914.PDF