California v. Howard Docket: G059213 (Fourth Appellate District), Opinion Date: December 22, 2021. Defendant Harry Howard filed a motion for a Franklin proceeding three decades after committing the underlying offense. By that time, he had already introduced youth-related evidence at a prior parole hearing, but he had never requested a Franklin proceeding. The court denied his motion on its face because it failed to show what additional evidence merited preservation. The Court of Appeal found the trial court prematurely denied Howard’s request. "His motion met the legal requirements to initiate the Franklin process. As such, the court should have provided Howard an opportunity to explain the evidence he sought to introduce before determining whether a Franklin proceeding was warranted." Judgment was reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings. #franklinhearing #juvenile #hallmarksofyouth
Would you like to have your incarcerated loved one receive all these legal updates? We provide this and much more in our monthly legal newsletter, PLU MAX! You can log into www.possesolutions.com on the Shop tab to order. It is only $42.00 per year (12 issues – postage included). Email us at info@possesolutions.com for more information, or call us at (213) 340-1232 to place your order! Check out our video for details about PLU MAX! #legalnews #legalupdates #prisonernews #legalnewsletter
