Filed 4/23/21 P. v. Juarez CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO THE PEOPLE, B304377 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA469086) v. OSMAN ROLANDO GALICIA JUAREZ, Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Craig J. Mitchell, Judge. Affirmed and remanded with directions. Jean Ballantine, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Steven D. Matthews and Michael J. Wise, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. Osman Rolando Galicia Juarez appeals the judgment entered following a jury trial in which he was convicted of two counts of sexual intercourse or sodomy with a child 10 years old or younger (Pen. Code,1 § 288.7, subd. (a); counts 4 & 7), two counts of oral copulation or sexual penetration with a child 10 years old or younger (§ 288.7, subd. (b); counts 5 & 8), and three counts of a lewd act upon a child under the age of 14 (§ 288, subd. (a); counts 3, 6, & 9).2 The trial court sentenced appellant to two consecutive terms of 25 years to life on counts 4 and 7, plus concurrent terms on the remaining counts of conviction, for a total term of 50 years to life in state prison. Appellant was 18 years old when he committed multiple nonviolent sex offenses against his half-sister beginning when she was nine. At sentencing, the trial court ruled that because of the nature of his offenses, appellant is ineligible for a youth offender parole hearing under section 3051. Appellant contends the court incorrectly determined that appellant is excluded from early parole consideration based on his youth at the time of his offenses, and the error requires remand for a hearing under People v. Franklin (2016) 63 Cal.4th 261 (Franklin) to preserve evidence for a future youth offender parole hearing in accordance with section 3051, subdivisions (d) through (f). We agree and remand the matter to the trial court for a full hearing for the purpose of affording both parties the opportunity to make a 1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. 2 The jury acquitted appellant on counts 1 (sexual intercourse or sodomy with a child 10 years old or younger, § 288.7, subd. (a)) and 2 (oral copulation or sexual penetration with a child 10 years old or younger (§ 288.7, subd. (b)). 2 record of information relevant to appellant’s future youth offender parole hearing. Appellant further contends that his 50-year-to-life sentence constitutes cruel and unusual punishment …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals