Filed 7/26/23 P. v. Felix CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

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.

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.