Filed 10/15/ 21 P. v. Paguada CA2/8

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respond ent,

v.

MARVIN NAHUN PAGUADA,

Defendant and Appellant. B305782

(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. YA019025)

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Laura C. Ellison, Judge. Reversed.
Lis e M. Breakey, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Noah P. Hill, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, and Nima Razfar, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

____________________2 Marvin Nahun Paguada appeals the trial court’s denial of his postjudgment request for a Franklin proceeding. The prosecution agrees this proceeding was due. We reverse and remand for the requested proceeding. Statutory references are to
the Penal Code

. In 1994, Paguada pleaded guilty to two kidnapping counts (§ 209, subds. (a) & (b)) and admitted two firearm enhancements (§ 12 022.5, subd. (a)). The trial court sentenced Paguada to two terms of life with the possibility of parole, plus consecutive four

year terms for the enhancements. Paguada was 21 years old when he committed the crimes.
He claimed he “drank an unusual amou nt of alcohol” and was on drugs at the time. He had been using cocaine and speed daily. The probation report shows Paguada had no criminal history. It characterizes Paguada and his cohorts as “ very unsophisticated and immature.” A detective described them as “the dumbest criminals he has ever faced” and opined the crimes were “a reaction against overly strict and sheltered upbringings.”
Another officer said

, “their boldness and stupidity [were] almost
unbelievable.” In January 2020, Paguada, represe nting himself, moved for
a limited remand under section 1203.01. Paguada sought to make a record of youth

- related evidence for an eventual youth offender parole hearing. His motion invoked In re Cook (2019) 7 Cal.5th 439 ( Cook ) and People v. Franklin (20 16) 63 Cal.4th 261 ( Franklin ).
In Franklin

, supra , 63 Cal.4th at p ages 269 and 284, the Supreme Court recognized the right of youth offenders described by section 3051 to make a record of mitigating evidence tied to youth for later use in a youth offende r parole hearing. S ection3

3051 pro vides for such hearings, as well as parole eligibility, for youth offenders serving life terms or other lengthy sentences (with exceptions not applicable here) during their 15th, 20th, or 25th year of incarceration, depending on the sentence.
In Cook

, supra , 7 Cal.5th at p ages 451

– 45 9 , the Court
determined section 1203.01 provides the means for conducting an evidence preservation proceeding under Franklin for offenders
with final convictions.
The tr ial court denied Paguada’s motion the day he filed it, finding Paguada failed to state a prima facie case and had the opportunity to present evidence of his youth at his sentencing hearing. The basis for the latter finding is unknown, as there is
no heari ng transcript and nothing in the 1994 minute orders supports the finding. Denying Paguada’s motion was error. The prosecution concedes the error. According to the prosecution, nothing indicates Paguada has had a parole hearing or “sufficient opportuni ty to present relevant youth offender information at a postconviction proceeding with the benefit of appointed counsel.” Following the Supreme Court’s guidance in Cook

, supra , 7 Cal.5th at p ages 458

– 460

, the self

- represented Paguada filed a motion in the superior court under the original case number, citing section 1203.01 and Cook

. Paguada represented he was 2 1 years old at the time of his crimes

— well under the statutory age limit of 25 (see § 3051, subd. (b)(1)

– (3))

— yet no prior h earing addressed his youthfulness. Paguada’s motion maintained he
was entitled to make a record of information relevant to an eventual youth offender parole hearing and explicitly requested a “Franklin Hearing.”4 The 1994 sentencing hearing was no substit ute for the requested Franklin proceeding. (See People v. Rodriguez (2018) 4 Cal.5th 1123, 1131.) Paguada is entitled to this proceeding . (See People v. Lipptrapp (2021) 59 Cal.App.5th 886, 89 2 & 89 6 ( Lipptrapp ).)
As Paguada has spent more than 25 ye ars in prison, the
trial court should conduct the Franklin proceeding as soon as possible. (See Lipptrapp

, supra , 59 Cal.App.5th at p. 897.)
DISPOSITION
We reverse the trial court’s order and remand for a
Franklin evidence preservation proceeding, with counsel appointed for Paguada

.

WILEY, J.

We concur:

STRATTON, Acting P. J.

OHTA, J. *

* Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.