influence of youth-related factors in California

2026Franklin authorized postjudgment evidence preservation proceedings at which prisoners eligible for youthful offender parole hearings can place on the record mitigating evidence that “demonstrates the juvenile offender’s culpability or cognitive maturity, or otherwise bears on the influence of youth-related factors.” (Franklin, at p. 284; see In re 2 All statutory references are to the Penal Code. 3 Cook (2019) 7 Cal.5th 439, 449-450, 452-453 (Cook); People v. Howard (2021) 74 Cal.App.5th 141 , 149.) The superior court appointed counsel for Russell and conducted a Franklin proceeding on March 2

2025The trial court “may receive submissions and, if appropriate, testimony pursuant to procedures set forth in section 1204 and rule 4.437 of the California Rules of Court, and subject to the rules of evidence.” (Franklin, supra, 63 Cal.4th at p. 284 .) The defendant may place on the record “any documents, evaluations, or testimony (subject to cross- examination) that may be relevant at his eventual youth offender parole hearing, and the prosecution likewise may put on the record any evidence that demonstrates the juvenile 12. offender’s culpability or cognitive maturity, or otherwise bears on th

2025The trial court “may receive submissions and, if appropriate, testimony pursuant to procedures set forth in section 1204 and rule 4.437 of the California Rules of Court, and subject to the rules of evidence.” (Franklin, supra, 63 Cal.4th at p. 284 .) The defendant may place on the record “any documents, evaluations, or testimony (subject to cross- examination) that may be relevant at his eventual youth offender parole hearing, and the prosecution likewise may put on the record any evidence that demonstrates the juvenile 12. offender’s culpability or cognitive maturity, or otherwise bears on th

2021In light of the changed legal landscape, we remand this case so that the trial court may determine whether Franklin was afforded sufficient opportunity to make such a record at sentencing.” (Franklin, supra, 63 Cal.4th at p. 269 .) The court clarified that if the trial court determined the defendant did not make an accurate record, he was entitled to a hearing where he could “place on the record any documents, evaluations, or testimony (subject to cross- examination) that may be relevant at his eventual youth offender parole hearing, and the prosecution likewise may put on the record any evide

2025The trial court “may receive submissions and, if appropriate, testimony pursuant to procedures set forth in section 1204 and rule 4.437 of the California Rules of Court, and subject to the rules of evidence.” (Franklin, supra, 63 Cal.4th at p. 284 .) The defendant may place on the record “any documents, evaluations, or testimony (subject to cross- examination) that may be relevant at his eventual youth offender parole hearing, and the prosecution likewise may put on the record any evidence that demonstrates the juvenile 12. offender’s culpability or cognitive maturity, or otherwise bears on th

2025They permit a youthful offender to “place on the record any documents, evaluations, or testimony (subject to cross-examination) that may be relevant at his eventual youth offender parole hearing, and the prosecution likewise may put on the record any evidence that demonstrates the juvenile offender’s culpability or cognitive maturity, or otherwise bears on the influence of youth-related factors.” (Franklin, supra, 63 Cal.4th at p. 284 .) Importantly, however, this record-making process has no bearing on the defendant’s underlying sentence.

2023The goal of any such proceeding is to provide an opportunity for the parties to make an accurate record of the juvenile 8 offender’s 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 (§ 4801, subd. (c)) in determining whether the offender is ‘fit to rejoin society’ despite having committed a serious crime ‘while he was a child in the eyes of the law’ (Graham[ v. Florida], supra, 560 U.S. at p. 79 ).” (Franklin, supra, 63 Cal.4th at p. 284 .)1 The Supreme Court explai

2022The Legislature enacted section 3051 in 2013 in response to a series of decisions addressing Eighth 9 Amendment limits on the length of sentences for juvenile offenders (see, e.g., Miller v. Alabama (2012) 567 U.S. 460 ; Graham v. Florida (2010) 560 U.S. 48, 75 ).

2019Rather, consistent with Franklin and the court's inherent authority, the offender shall have the opportunity to "place on the record any documents, evaluations, or testimony (subject to cross-examination) that may be relevant at his eventual youth offender parole hearing, and the prosecution likewise may put on the record any evidence that *459 demonstrates the juvenile offender's culpability or cognitive maturity, or otherwise bears on the influence of youth-related factors." ( Franklin , at p. 284, 202 Cal.Rptr.3d 496 , 370 P.3d 1053 .) Although Franklin mandates an opportunity for evidence

2018Consequently, we direct the trial court to conduct a " Franklin hearing" on remand allowing both parties to put on the record any relevant evidence that demonstrates Loza's "culpability or cognitive maturity, or otherwise bears on the influence of youth-related factors." ( Id . at p. 284, 202 Cal.Rptr.3d 496 , 370 P.3d 1053 .) III DISPOSITION Loza's petition for a writ of habeas corpus is granted.

2023(Cook, supra, 7 Cal.5th at p. 459 .) . . . [I]n deciding whether the trial court has abused its discretion we are required to ‘ask whether the trial court’s findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence, whether its rulings of law are correct, and whether its application of the law to the facts was neither arbitrary nor capricious. [Citation.] . . . [W]hen a trial court’s decision rests on an error of law, that decision is an abuse of discretion.’ (People v. Superior Court (Humberto S.) (2008) 43 Cal.4th 737, 746 [].)” (People v. Benzler (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 743 , 749.) II Section 30