Court Opinion

ID: 9929157
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-01 21:02:18.652719+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:17:42.073920
License: Public Domain

Filed 2/1/24 P. v. Reynolds 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   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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,                                                    B331433

         Plaintiff and Respondent,                             (Los Angeles County
                                                               Super. Ct. No. VA139152-02)
         v.

DARIOUS REYNOLDS,

         Defendant and Appellant.

     APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, Joseph R. Porras, Judge. Affirmed.

     Richard B. Lennon, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

         No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

                                    ——————————
      Pursuant to People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216
(Delgadillo), we review this appeal of an order denying an
evidentiary hearing to preserve evidence for a youth offender
parole hearing pursuant to Penal Code1 section 1203.01, People v.
Franklin (2016) 63 Cal.4th 261 and In re Cook (2019) 7 Cal.5th
439. We affirm.
                        BACKGROUND
       In 2014, appellant Darious Reynolds entered pleas of no
contest to charges of robbery and rape, violations of sections 211
and 261, subdivision (a)(2). He also admitted he personally used
a firearm in the commission of the rape within the meaning of
section 12022.53, subd. (b). The trial court sentenced Reynolds to
14 years in state prison. Reynolds was 17 years old at the time of
the offense.
       In 2023, Reynolds filed a post-judgment motion for an
evidentiary proceeding to preserve evidence to be used at a youth
offender parole hearing. The trial court denied the motion
because Reynolds was ineligible for a youth offender parole
hearing under section 3051. Reynolds timely appealed.
       On October 26, 2023, we appointed counsel to represent
Reynolds on appeal. On November 30, 2023, counsel filed a no-
issue brief pursuant to People v. Delgadillo. Counsel advised us
he had told Reynolds he may file his own supplemental brief
within 30 days. Counsel sent Reynolds transcripts of the record
on appeal as well as a copy of the brief.
       On December 1, 2023, this court sent Reynolds notice that
a brief raising no issues had been filed on his behalf. We advised
him he had 30 days within which to submit a supplemental brief

1     Further statutory references are to the Penal Code.

                                2
or letter stating any issues he believes we should consider. We
also advised him that if he did not file a supplemental brief, the
appeal may be dismissed as abandoned.
       On December 29, 2023, Reynolds filed a supplemental brief,
in which he contends: 1) trial counsel provided ineffective
assistance in failing to inform him about his eligibility for a youth
offender parole hearing; 2) he wants to withdraw his no contest
plea because he was ill informed about his rights; 3) he suffered
from mental duress, incompetency and derangement at the time
of his sentencing; 4) trial counsel provided ineffective assistance
in failing to present his mental duress to the sentencing judge as
mitigation of punishment; 5) he was never identified in a lineup
or in the surveillance video from the business at the time of the
incident; and 6) there was no evidence against him except his
own statement which he gave without the benefit of a Miranda2
warning.
                          DISCUSSION
       Reynolds raises what he perceives to be weaknesses in the
evidence at trial and errors made by his trial counsel. An appeal
from a post-judgment motion for a youth offender parole hearing
is not a vehicle to raise unrelated claims of error allegedly
committed by the trial court or trial counsel or to attack the
sufficiency of the evidence to support a plea. We decline to
address these issues.
       We note Reynolds is not entitled to a youth offender parole
hearing under section 3051. Section 3051 entitles certain
prisoners who committed “controlling offenses” under the age of
26 to youth offender parole hearings and to a “meaningful

2     Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436.

                                 3
opportunity for release.” (§ 3051, subds. (a)(1) & (e).) The statute
provides for a youth offender parole hearing after a fixed period
of years. (In re Jenson (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 266, 273, 277.)
A youth offender is entitled to such a parole hearing during the
15th year of incarceration on a determinate sentence; during the
20th year of incarceration on a life term of less than 25 years to
life; and during the 25th year of incarceration on a term of
25 years to life, or life without the possibility of parole if under
the age of 18 when the crime was committed. (§ 3051, subd.
(b)(1)–(4).) Here appellant was sentenced to a 14-year term. He
will be released before the mandated youth offender parole
hearing timeframes are activated.
       We are not required to independently review the record and
we decline to do so. (Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 226.)
                          DISPOSITION
      The order denying the motion for a youth offender parole
hearing is affirmed.

      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

                                           STRATTON, P. J.

We concur:

             GRIMES, J.                    WILEY, J.

                                 4