1

Filed 1/25/23 P. v. Franklin CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Yuba)

----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

JONATHAN SCOTT FRANKLIN,

Defendant and Appellant.

C096191

(Super. Ct. No. 

CRF09-0000373)

ORDER GRANTING 

MOTION TO WAIVE ALL 

APPELLATE CLAIMS,

REMAND MATTER TO 

THE TRIAL COURT, AND 

IMMEDIATELY ISSUE THE 

REMITTITUR

THE COURT:

The parties’ motion to: (1) waive all appellate claims; (2) remand the matter to the 

trial court for a compassionate release hearing conducted pursuant to the Penal Code 

section 1172.2;1 and (3) immediately issue the remittitur is granted.

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
2

In light of Assembly Bill No. 960 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.), which amended the 

framework for compassionate release effective January 1, 2023 (Stats. 2022, ch. 744, 

§ 3), and added Penal Code section 1172.2, providing, in relevant part: 

“(a) Notwithstanding any other law and consistent with paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) 

of Section 1170, if the statewide chief medical executive, in consultation with other 

clinical executives, as needed, determines that an incarcerated person satisfies the 

medical criteria set forth in subdivision (b), the department shall recommend to the court 

that the incarcerated person’s sentence be recalled. [¶] (b) There shall be a presumption 

favoring recall and resentencing under this section if the court finds that the facts 

described in paragraph (1) or (2) exist, which may only be overcome if a court finds the 

defendant is an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety, as defined in subdivision (c) 

of Section 1170.18, based on the incarcerated person’s current physical and mental 

condition. [¶] (1) The incarcerated person has a serious and advanced illness with an 

end-of-life trajectory. Examples include, but are not limited to, metastatic solid-tumor 

cancer, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), end-stage organ disease, and advanced endstage dementia.” Under section 1172.2, subdivision (k), defendant is also entitled to the 

appointment of counsel. It is undisputed that defendant Jonathan Scott Franklin has a 

serious and advanced illness with an end-of-life trajectory. We accept the Attorney 

General’s proper concession that considerations of judicial efficiency counsel in favor of 

applying the new statutory framework to this case. 

This court may reverse or modify a judgment pursuant to stipulation in accordance 

with the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 128, subdivision (a)(8). That 

section requires us to make specific findings: (1) “[t]here is no reasonable possibility that 

the interests of nonparties or the public will be adversely affected by the reversal”; and 

(2) “[t]he reasons . . . for requesting reversal outweigh the erosion of public trust that may 

result from the nullification of a judgment and the risk that the availability of stipulated 

reversal will reduce the incentive for pretrial settlement.” (Ibid.) Our authority to reverse 
3

or modify a judgment pursuant to stipulation applies equally in civil and criminal cases. 

(People v. Browning (1978) 79 Cal.App.3d 320, 323, citing Landberg v. Landberg (1972) 

24 Cal.App.3d 742, 746.)

We find that the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 128, subdivision 

(a)(8) are satisfied here. The parties’ stipulation supports the conclusion that there is no 

reasonable possibility that the interests of nonparties or the public will be adversely 

affected by remanding the case for a further hearing on whether defendant’s sentence 

should be recalled and he be resentenced. Further, the public trust will not be eroded by 

this disposition. Our granting of the waiver of all of defendant’s claims on appeal and 

remanding this case for a further compassionate release hearing is based on the new and 

dispositive change in law effective January 1, 2023, requiring the trial court to appoint 

counsel for this terminally ill defendant, and conduct a hearing with the presumption in 

favor of recall and resentencing under this section unless the trial court finds defendant 

poses an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety. In remanding this case, we express 

no opinion as to what the trial court’s ultimate resolution of this matter should be.

Pursuant to section 1260, good cause having been shown by stipulation of the 

parties, the trial court’s order is reversed, and the matter is remanded to the trial court for 
4

reconsideration under section 1172.2. The clerk of this court is directed to immediately 

issue the remittitur upon filing of the opinion. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.272(c)(1).) 

BY THE COURT: 

 DUARTE , Acting P. J.

 KRAUSE , J.

 McADAMS , J.*

*

Judge of the Yolo County Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant 

to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.