Court Opinion

ID: 9411358
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-26 17:04:11.087791+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:21:06.281912
License: Public Domain

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                 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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,                                                          D081620

         Plaintiff and Respondent,

         v.                                                          (Super. Ct. No. SWF017408)

FABIAN FELIX,

         Defendant and Appellant.

         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.
                         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.
                                        2
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 post-
judgment 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.

                                        3
                               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.

                                      4