People v. Muro CA4/1

INTRODUCTION

Gilbert Muro appeals the trial court’s denial of his request for a Franklin proceeding to preserve youth-related mitigating evidence relevant to his parole suitability, and his related request for the appointment of

counsel. (People v. Franklin (2016) 63 Cal.4th 261 (Franklin).)1 Additionally, Muro asserts he should be given the opportunity on remand to argue he is eligible for the discretionary resentencing procedure under recently enacted Assembly Bill No. 600 (2023–2024 Reg. Sess.) (Assembly Bill 600) (Stats. 2023, ch. 446). The Attorney General concedes Muro is eligible for a Franklin

proceeding under Penal Code section 4801, subdivision (c),2 and that he is entitled to the appointment of counsel to represent him during the proceedings. However, it disagrees with Muro’s contention that he is eligible for resentencing under Assembly Bill 600. The Attorney General additionally contends that regardless of Muro’s eligibility for relief under Assembly Bill 600, his claim is an improper request for an advisory opinion from this court because he has not yet raised his claim in the trial court.

Although Muro refers to the Franklin proceeding as a “hearing” in…