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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

FABIAN FELIX,

Defendant and Appellant.

 D081620

 (Super. Ct. No. SWF017408)

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.
2

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.
3

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 postjudgment 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. 
4

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.