People v. Woods
19 Cal. App. 5th 1080
| Cal. Ct. App. 5th | 2018Background
- Defendant Montrell Woods (19 at the time) shot and killed Kenny Hernandez; jury convicted him of second-degree murder, felon in possession of a firearm, and found he personally discharged a firearm causing death (Pen. Code § 12022.53(d)).
- Trial court sentenced Woods to 15 years to life for murder plus a consecutive 25 years to life for the firearm enhancement (total 40 years to life); felony possession sentence ran concurrently.
- At sentencing the then-operative § 12022.53(h) barred courts from striking the firearm enhancement; a 2018 amendment added discretion to strike such enhancements under § 1385.
- Woods sought (1) a Franklin remand to permit supplementation of the record for a future youth offender parole hearing under Penal Code §§ 3051 and 4801, and (2) remand to permit the trial court to exercise discretion under the amended § 12022.53(h).
- The court rejected Woods’s claims of trial error and prosecutorial misconduct (unpublished portion), held he was not entitled to a Franklin remand because he had opportunity at sentencing to place youth-related mitigation on the record, but agreed remand was required so the trial court can decide whether to strike the firearm enhancement under the retroactive amendment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a Franklin remand was required so defendant could place youth-related mitigation on the record for a future youth offender parole hearing | People: sentencing record and probation report show opportunity was given; Franklin remand unnecessary | Woods: sentencing record lacks sufficient youth-related information; probation report and sentencing transcript do not address the statutory youth factors, so a limited remand is needed | Denied — court found Woods had ample opportunity at sentencing, counsel acknowledged the probation report (which summarized psychological/IQ material), and thus no Franklin remand was required |
| Whether remand is required so the trial court can exercise newly granted discretion under amended Penal Code § 12022.53(h) to strike the firearm enhancement | People: amendment grants discretion and appears retroactive; remand appropriate | Woods: amendment applies retroactively; remand needed to allow court to consider striking the enhancement | Granted — remand ordered so the trial court may exercise its discretion to strike or dismiss the firearm enhancement under the 2018 amendment |
| Whether other claimed trial errors and prosecutorial misconduct require reversal | People: challenged errors are without merit | Woods: argued various instructional errors, exclusion of victim-violence evidence, and prosecutorial misconduct warrant reversal | Rejected — unpublished portion of opinion finds no merit in those claims |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Franklin, 63 Cal.4th 261 (2016) (discusses youth offender parole hearings and the need to allow juveniles opportunity to place youth-related mitigation on the record)
- In re Estrada, 63 Cal.2d 740 (1965) (statutory ameliorations presumed retroactive absent contrary intent)
- Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012) (Eighth Amendment prohibits mandatory life-without-parole for juvenile homicide offenders without consideration of youth)
- People v. Cornejo, 3 Cal.App.5th 36 (2016) (no remand needed when record shows opportunity to place youth-related information on record)
- People v. Francis, 71 Cal.2d 66 (1969) (discusses application of ameliorative statutory changes)