WINNER of Attorney Letarte’s 2021 Parole Hearing Scholarship, was found SUITABLE on 5/19/22

As a reminder and per our previous December 2021 Parole Hearing SCHOLARSHIP BLOG; the Winner received Attorney Letarte’s PRO BONO (free) representation at their 2022 Parole Hearing. The Scholarship was made available throughout the 35 California State Prisons, as posted in the 2021 Prison Newsletters that endorsed our Scholarship. The two Newsletters were: ECC and POSSE as described below. 

 In the last several 2022 months, our law office was preparing the WINNER of the Parole Hearing Scholarship for his Board hearing. He followed all of our presentation strategies and did the requested homework including, re-writing each specific Relapse Prevention Plan(s), Apology letters, Book Reports, and Essays. All parties attended the VIDEO Parole Hearing including our client, who hails from CTF-Soledad. After several hours of questioning by the Panel, my client appeased all the Panel’s concerns and it was found that he did NOT pose an unreasonable threat of violence, if release to the free community. Of Course, there is a 150-day waiting period from the BPH Review Unit and the Governor’s office for the Decision to become Final. 

 A Big Congratulations to Anthony Stevenson, especially after being discouraged to enter the Scholarship’s writing contest, by some negative thinking peers. To his credits he found the courage to not only ENTER the Scholarship but actually WIN it! He relayed that he had never won anything in his life! The best part of it was that when he went to the Board with Attorney Letarte, and after some deliberation by the Commissioners, he was found SUITABLE on 5/19/2022. 

We now have authorization to post the NAMEs of the Winner as well as the runner-ups from our Parole Hearing 2021. 

 PRIZEs: 

1st Place Winner received a Pro Bono representation by Attorney Letarte at his 2022 Parole Hearing. 

2nd and 3rd place winners did receive the revised TIPS document (authored by Attorney Letarte, consisting of over 40+ pages) to assist with their own preparation at their next parole hearing. In addition, they received our Law Office’s 2022 Wall Calendar to keep track of all their important dates. 

 2021 SCHOLARSHIP NAMES for the 2022 Parole Hearing: 

 1st Place Winner was represented [Pro Bono] by Attorney Diane T. Letarte*** 

 1st Place WINNER from Correctional Training Facility (CTF) State Prison, Anthony Stevenson was admitted in October 1994 and is currently 48 years old. His Parole Eligible Date was 2/2011; Has been in the Board cycle since 2009.

Anthony Stevenson was found SUITABLE for Parole on 5/19/2022 !

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Although Attorney Letarte did not represent the runner-ups they deserved recognition for their writing essay skills that showed insight into their crime.

2nd Place (1st runner-up) from Ca. Substance Abuse Treatment Facility (SATF-COR) 

Richard Newman was admitted in June 1997 and is currently 51 years old. His Parole Eligible Date was 4/2004; Has been in the Board cycle since 2004 (denied 3 years in 2022) and returning in 2025

3rd Place (2nd runner-up) from Chuckawalla Valley State Prison (CVSP) 

Russell Farden was admitted in March 2009 and is currently 43 years old. His Parole Eligible Date was 10/2021; His Initial Board Hearing was postponed to late 2022 

NOTE OF INTEREST: We also heard back from some others [non-winner] scholarship applicants stating that the Scholarship writing essay made them gain more self-introspection. With that new gained insight they were better prepared for their Board Hearing(s) and some were found suitable when they went to their 2022 Board Parole Hearing. ============================================================== 

We may entertain doing a 2022 Scholarship for a 2023 hearing, depending on the availability of  Attorney Letarte. Please keep your eyes open for the next potential Scholarship listed (on this BLOG) and in the ECC or POSSE newsletters. The newsletters are usually found at the Prison library for Free or via a subscription to either newsletter listed below. You can write to subscribe to them. 

ECC  P.O. Box 5010 Irvine, CA 92619

POSSE  P.O. Box 900188  Palmdale, CA 93590 ============================================================== 

 The OLD 2021 CRITERIA for the Scholarship Application WAS as stated below. 

One can anticipate similar criteria for a potential 2022 Parole Hearing Scholarship for a 2023 hearing. 

1) No CDC-115 (RVRs) , in the last 5 years 

2) Psychological Evaluation (a.k.a. CRA) risk rating is either a Low or a Moderate  

3) You are NOT currently represented by a private attorney or a Law School Program

California v. Delgado (4/29/22) Youth offenders who are not eligible (i.e. 3X’er) for Early Parole Consideration are still entitled to Franklin Hearings to preserve evidence

California v. Delgado Docket: G059650 (Fourth Appellate District), Opinion Date: April 29, 2022.  

The Fourth Appellate District reversed a trial court order and remanded. The court held that youth offenders who are not eligible for early parole consideration under Penal Code §3051 are nonetheless entitled to Franklin hearings to preserve evidence for their eventual, non-§3051 parole hearings. Although Delgado's Three Strikes (3X) sentence rendered him ineligible for a youth offender parole hearing (YOPH), he was nonetheless entitled to an opportunity to preserve evidence of mitigating. 

The issue presented by this appeal was whether youthful offenders who are statutorily ineligible for early parole consideration were nevertheless entitled to a "Franklin" proceeding to preserve evidence for their eventual parole hearing. 

 During his early 20’s, appellant was involved in three separate criminal incidents. s a result of those incidents, appellant was convicted of kidnapping for robbery and multiple counts of robbery, burglary, false imprisonment and illegal gun possession. He was also found to have personally used a firearm during the offenses and suffered a prior strike conviction. The trial court sentenced him to 59 years to life in prison under the “Three Strikes” law. 

 In 2020, appellant requested a Franklin proceeding to present mitigation evidence in anticipation of his youth offender parole hearing (YOPH). However, the trial court correctly determined appellant was not eligible for a YOPH because he was sentenced under the Three Strikes law. Therefore, it denied his request for a Franklin proceeding. Appellant admitted he was statutorily ineligible for a YOPH because he was sentenced under the Three Strikes law. However, he contended he is entitled to a YOPH – and a concomitant Franklin proceeding – as a matter of equal protection. Although the Court of Appeal rejected appellant’s equal protection argument, both parties concluded he was entitled to a Franklin proceeding under the standard rules applicable to all parole hearings. The trial court's judgment was reversed and the case remanded for such a proceeding. 

BOTTOM LINE: The Legislature's reference to the above statute made clear that it intended the criteria set forth in §4801(c) to apply broadly to all parole hearings, not just youth offender parole hearings under §3051. Consequently, even though Delgado is not entitled to a youth offender parole hearings, the parole board will still---someday---have to consider his diminished capacity and subsequent maturation in assessing his suitability for parole.

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.