Filed 6/23/26 P. v. Carrasco CA4/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, G065897
v. (Super. Ct. No. 09CF0090)
NOEL CARRASCO, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
Appeal from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of
Orange County, Terri K. Flynn-Peister, Judge. Affirmed.
Robert L.S. Angres, under appointment by the Court of Appeal,
for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Respondent.
* * *
I. Introduction
Noel Carrasco (Defendant) appeals from an order denying his
postjudgment request for a hearing pursuant to People v. Franklin (2016) 63
Cal.4th 261. Defendant’s appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v.
Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo) to inform us that counsel had
found no arguable issues and to request that we exercise our discretion to
conduct an independent review of the record. Counsel also suggested one
issue for our consideration.
Defendant was given the opportunity to file a supplemental brief
on his own behalf and was given notice pursuant to Delgadillo that if no
supplemental brief was filed, the court might dismiss the appeal as
abandoned. Defendant has filed a supplemental brief.
We have conducted an independent review of the record and find
no arguable issues on appeal. The issue suggested by counsel has no merit.
We have evaluated the arguments presented by Defendant in his
supplemental brief and conclude none has merit. (Delgadillo, supra, 14
Cal.5th at p. 232.) We therefore affirm.
II. Background
In April 2013, a jury found Defendant guilty of one count of
murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a))1 and one count of robbery (§§ 211, 212.5,
subd. (c)). The jury found to be true a robbery special circumstance allegation
under section 190.2, subdivision (a)(17)(A).) Defendant was 22 years old when
he committed the offenses.
The trial court sentenced Defendant to life without the possibility
of parole on the murder conviction. The court imposed a concurrent three-
1 Further Code references are to the Penal Code.
2
year sentence on the robbery conviction. In a nonpublished opinion, People v.
Carrasco (Sept. 30, 2014, G048458), a panel of this court ordered a stay of the
sentence on the robbery conviction and corrected the award of presentence
custody credit, but otherwise affirmed the judgment.
In July 2025, Defendant in propria persona filed a “Notice and
Motion to Strike Enhancements Pursuant to Pen. Code § 1385 and Post
Conviction Prison Behavior; Declaration and Exhibits.”2 Defendant also filed
a “Notice and Motion for Franklin[] Hearing (Pe[n]. Code, § 1203.01) and
Appointment of Counsel.”
Citing Penal Code section 1172.1, subdivision (c), the trial court
declined to consider Defendant’s motion to strike enhancements. The court
denied Defendant’s motion for a Franklin hearing because “Defendant was
sentenced to life without the possibility of parole for a controlling offense
committed after [he] [had] attained the age of 18.”
Defendant timely filed a notice of appeal and a corrected notice of
appeal. Both notices identify the appeal as being from an order denying
Defendant’s motion for a Franklin hearing.
III. Issue Suggested by Counsel
Defendant’s counsel has suggested one issue for our
consideration: “Did the trial court err in failing to hold a hearing within the
meaning of People v. Franklin, supra, 63 Cal.4th 261 as requested by
appellant?” That issue has no merit. Youth offenders below age 26 are
generally eligible for a youth offender parole hearing (Franklin hearing)
pursuant to Penal Code section 3051. However, Penal Code section 3051,
subdivision (h) provides that an individual, such as Defendant, who was
2 That motion appears to have been directed to the robbery
special circumstances allegation, which the jury found to be true.
3
sentenced to life without the possibility of parole for an offense committed
after attaining 18 years of age, is ineligible for a youth offender parole
hearing. (See People v. Hardin (2024) 15 Cal.5th 834, 839.)
IV. Defendant’s Supplemental Brief
In his supplemental brief, Defendant argues, in effect, that the
trial court erred by declining to consider his motion under section 1172.1 to
strike enhancements. Although Defendant did not appeal from the order
denying his motion to strike enhancements, we shall address his argument.
Section 1172.1, subdivision (e) states: “A defendant is not entitled
to file a petition seeking relief from the court under this section. If a
defendant requests consideration for relief under this section, the court is not
required to respond.” Citing section 1172.1, subdivision (e), the trial court
declined to consider Defendant’s motion to strike enhancements. Contrary to
Defendant’s argument, the trial court was not required to consider the
postconviction factors of section 1172.1, subdivision (a)(5).
Defendant argues that section 1172.1 is inconsistent with section
1171, which concerns postconviction proceedings to modify a sentence or
conviction pursuant to an ameliorating statute, including section 1172.1.
Section 1171, subdivision (c) lists a series of tasks and procedures a trial
court must undertake in such a postconviction proceeding.
Defendant contends the trial court erred by failing to follow the
procedures of section 1171, subdivision (c). But subdivision (c) states its
procedures “shall apply to all postconviction proceedings unless there is a
conflict with a more specific rule established in statute, in which case the
more specific statue will apply.” (Italics added.) Section 1172.1, subdivision
(c) sets forth a more specific rule: “The language of section 1171, subdivision
(c) requiring a trial court to take any action in response to a request for recall
4
and resentencing clearly conflicts with the more specific rule established in
section 1172.1, which expressly states that ‘the court is not required to
respond’ to a defendant-initiated request under that section.” (People v.
Brinson (2025) 112 Cal.App.5th 1040, 1048.) “[S]ection 1172.1, subdivision
(c), not section 1171, subdivision (c), applies to defendant-initiated requests
for recall and resentencing.” (Id. at p. 1049.)
Defendant also suggests the trial court erred by denying his
motion under section 1385 without allowing a hearing. There was no error. A
court is not authorized to grant relief under section 1385 after the imposition
of sentence and rendition of judgment. (People v. Kim (2012) 212 Cal.App.4th
117, 122-123.)
V. Disposition
The postjudgment order is affirmed.
SANCHEZ, J.
WE CONCUR:
MOTOIKE, P. J.
MOORE, J.
5