Court Opinion

ID: 9395075
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-17 00:02:30.668748+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:05.272226
License: Public Domain

Filed 5/16/23 P. v. Calderon CA5

                  NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
                                     FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

    THE PEOPLE,
                                                                                             F084833
           Plaintiff and Respondent,
                                                                               (Super. Ct. No. VCF239260)
                    v.

    MIGUEL CALDERON,                                                                      OPINION
           Defendant and Appellant.

                                                   THE COURT*
         APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Tulare County. Melinda Myrle
Reed, Judge.
         David Y. Stanley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
         Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney
General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Michael A. Canzoneri, and
Barton Bowers, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
                                                        -ooOoo-

*        Before Hill, P. J., Detjen, J. and Franson, J.
       Defendant Miguel Calderon pursued this appeal for the opportunity to participate
in a hearing authorized by People v. Franklin (2016) 63 Cal.4th 261, commonly referred
to as a Franklin hearing. Recently, this court learned defendant was granted a
Franklin hearing by the trial court. Therefore, because the issue presented is now moot,
defendant’s appeal is dismissed.
                                     BACKGROUND
       On June 22, 2011, a jury found defendant guilty of six counts of attempted murder
(Pen. Code,1 §§ 187, subd. (a), 664), and one count of firing into an inhabited dwelling
(§ 246). The jury also found true various enhancements that had been alleged in the
information. Defendant was sentenced for these convictions to 120 years to life in
prison.2 However, following a reversal of the judgment and a remand for resentencing by
this court, defendant was resentenced to a term of 55 years to life.
       In July 2022, defendant filed with the trial court a petition to dismiss all firearm
enhancements, and a request for a Franklin hearing. On August 2, 2022, the court denied
defendant’s request to dismiss his firearm enhancements, stating his conviction was
already final when the relevant legislative changes were made for such relief. However,
in that same order, the court also denied defendant’s request for a Franklin hearing,
without prejudice, referencing a prior ruling of the court. A notice appealing that order
was filed on August 17, 2022.
       In his opening brief, defendant only challenges the trial court’s denial of his
request for a Franklin hearing. In response, the People acknowledged this matter should

1      All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
2      On this court’s own motion, we take judicial notice of the prior opinion in
People v. Calderon (May 23, 2013, F063435) [nonpub. opn.], pursuant to Evidence Code
sections 452, subdivision (d) and 459. A detailed summary of the facts underlying this
case can be found in this opinion.

                                              2
be remanded so that defendant could be given the opportunity of participating in a
Franklin hearing.
       On March 13, 2023, the People made a simultaneous request for judicial notice
and a motion to dismiss, alerting this court that on March 8, 2023, defendant was granted
the opportunity to schedule a Franklin hearing in the trial court.
       On April 5, 2023, this court issued the following order:

             “Respondent’s “REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE,” filed on
       March 13, 2023, is granted.

             “This court is in receipt of respondent’s “MOTION TO DISMISS
       APPEAL AS MOOT …,” filed on March 13, 2023. Appellant is granted
       15 days’ leave to file an informal response to the motion. Failure to file a
       response may be deemed agreement respondent’s motion be granted.”
Defendant has filed no response and the time to file any response has now expired.
                                       DISCUSSION
       As a preliminary matter, we grant the People’s request for judicial notice of the
March 9, 2023, minute order issued by the Tulare County Superior Court in case
No. VCF239260A. This minute order grants defendant’s request for a Franklin hearing
and allows defendant to file a petition that will then lead to the calendaring of the
Franklin hearing. The order was issued just before briefing was completed in this appeal.
       An appellate court, generally, must decide “ ‘ “actual controversies by a judgment
which can be carried into effect, and not to give opinions upon moot questions or abstract
propositions, or to declare principles or rules of law which cannot affect the matter [at]
issue in the case before it.” ’ ” (Eye Dog Foundation v. State Board of Guide Dogs for
the Blind (1967) 67 Cal.2d 536, 541.) “ ‘[A] case becomes moot when a court ruling can
have no practical effect or cannot provide the parties with effective relief. [Citation.]’ ”
(People v. Rish (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1370, 1380.)

                                              3
       The action taken in the trial court and represented in the March 9, 2023,
minute order provided defendant the remedy he sought from this court. In his petition
and during the Franklin hearing, defendant will have the opportunity to present facts
specifically relevant to his youthful “characteristics and circumstances at the time of the
offense[.]” (People v. Franklin, supra, 63 Cal.4th at p. 283.) However, the issue
presented by defendant in this appeal is now moot.
                                      DISPOSITION
       Defendant’s appeal is dismissed.

                                             4