Opinion
H048250
06-29-2021
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ROBERT BERNARD BROOKS, Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Monterey County Super. Ct. No. MCR6530
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Grover, J.
We resolve this case by memorandum opinion pursuant to California Standards of Judicial Administration, Title 8, Standard 8.1. (See also People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847, 853-855.)
Defendant was convicted of first degree murder and two counts of robbery in 1988, and sentenced to 27 years to life. The crimes were committed in 1987 when he was 19 years old. Defendant was denied parole in 2006, and either waived a parole suitability hearing or stipulated to unsuitability in 2011, 2013, and 2015. He was denied parole in 2018, and his next scheduled parole suitability hearing is in 2025.
In January 2020, defendant filed a motion under Penal Code section 1203.01, subdivision (a), seeking to make a record of mitigating evidence related to his youth for consideration at future parole hearings, as provided for in People v. Franklin (2016) 63 Cal.4th 261, 284 (authorizing remand proceeding for parties to make an accurate record of a juvenile offender's characteristics and circumstances for later consideration by parole board) and In re Cook (2019) 7 Cal.5th 439, 451, 457-458 (Franklin proceeding applies to youthful offenders whose sentences are final; postjudgment proceeding initiated by way of motion under Penal Code section 1203.01). The trial court denied the motion, agreeing with the prosecution that defendant was not entitled to a Franklin-Cook proceeding because he had already received parole hearings under existing law. Defendant's sole contention on appeal is that the trial court erred in denying his motion. The Attorney General concedes that the trial court's ruling was based on an incorrect interpretation of controlling law, and that the matter should be remanded for the trial court to conduct further proceedings consistent with Franklin and Cook.
Penal Code section 3041.5 sets forth the parole hearing procedures for life prisoners. In cases where a life offense is committed by someone under age 26, “in reviewing a prisoner's suitability for parole pursuant to Section 3041.5, ” the parole board “shall give great weight to the diminished culpability of juveniles as compared to adults, the hallmark features of youth, and any subsequent growth and increased maturity of the prisoner in accordance with relevant case law.” (Pen. Code, § 4801, subd. (c), as amended by Stats. 2013, ch. 312, § 5.) Consequently, defendant is entitled to a Franklin-Cook proceeding in the trial court to make an accurate record of his characteristics and circumstances at the time of the offense. Defendant's past parole hearings do not render him ineligible for a Franklin-Cook proceeding because his future parole hearings will be governed by the youth offender standards set out in Penal Code section 4801, subdivision (c).
We note that the right to offer evidence at a Franklin-Cook proceeding is not unlimited. “[T]he trial court may ‘exercise its discretion to conduct this process efficiently, ensuring that the information introduced is relevant, noncumulative, and otherwise in accord with the governing rules, statutes, and regulations.' [Citation.] The court may, for example, require an offer of proof regarding the evidence the offender seeks to present, so that it can determine whether such evidence is relevant to youth-related factors and meaningfully adds to the already available record. It may also determine whether testimony is ‘appropriate' [citation], or if other types of evidentiary submissions will suffice.” (In re Cook, supra, 7 Cal.5th at p. 459.)
DISPOSITION
The order denying defendant's motion for the trial court to conduct a Franklin-Cook proceeding is reversed. On remand, the trial court shall grant the motion and conduct a proceeding consistent with Franklin and Cook.
WE CONCUR: Greenwood, P. J., Danner, J.