A “Franklin hearing” is more accurately a Franklin proceeding: an opportunity in the original superior-court case to preserve evidence about a person’s youth and later growth for a possible future youth-offender parole hearing. The court receives a record for the Board of Parole Hearings to consider later; the court does not decide parole suitability, resentence the person, or order release in this proceeding. Eligibility depends on the offense age, sentence and statutory exclusions. (People v. Franklin (2016); In re Cook (2019); Penal Code § 3051)
Why preserve a record now?
At a later youth-offender parole hearing, the Board must give great weight to the diminished culpability and hallmark features of youth, along with growth and maturity since the offense. Evidence from school, family, community members or an evaluation may be easier to collect before memories fade and records disappear. California law also allows people who knew the person before the crime or have seen later growth to submit statements for Board review. A Franklin proceeding preserves relevant material for that later decision; it does not guarantee parole. (Penal Code § 4801(c); Penal Code § 3051(f); Franklin)
The superior court may accept relevant documents and evaluations and, when appropriate, testimony subject to cross-examination. The prosecution may submit relevant evidence too. The judge can require an explanation of what proposed evidence adds, limit cumulative material and decide whether testimony is necessary. The proceeding is for record preservation, not a second trial about guilt or a prediction of what the Board will decide. (Franklin; Cook)
Who may have a youth-offender parole hearing?
The first check is the person’s age when the controlling offense was committed, not their age today. The “controlling offense” is the offense or enhancement for which a sentencing court imposed the longest imprisonment term. For an otherwise qualifying offense committed at age 25 or younger, current Penal Code § 3051(a)–(b) generally sets these youth-parole eligibility points:
| Sentence for the controlling offense | Youth-parole eligibility point |
|---|---|
| Determinate term | During the 15th year of incarceration |
| Life term of less than 25 years to life | During the 20th year |
| Life term of 25 years to life | During the 25th year |
| Life without parole for an offense committed before age 18 | During the 25th year, under the separate juvenile provision |
These are points for Board parole consideration, not deadlines for a Franklin proceeding or promised release dates. An earlier parole route or a statutory timing provision may change the particular person’s schedule. (Penal Code § 3051(a)(2)(C), (b), (j))
Being 25 or younger at the offense does not by itself establish eligibility. Section 3051(h) excludes, among other cases, sentences under the Three Strikes or One Strike provisions, life without parole for a controlling offense committed at age 18 or older, and a specified later serious offense committed after turning 26. The California Supreme Court rejected a general equal-protection challenge to the adult life-without-parole exclusion, while leaving room for focused challenges; a later published decision recognized one narrow as-applied exception for a particular felony-murder/special-circumstance class. Neither decision makes every young adult with a life-without-parole sentence eligible. (People v. Hardin (2024); People v. Briscoe (2024), modified opinion)
Can someone seek a proceeding after the conviction is final?
Yes, if they are otherwise entitled to a youth-offender parole hearing, a final conviction does not by itself foreclose preserving the youth-related record. Under In re Cook, the person can seek a Franklin proceeding by motion in the original superior-court case, identifying the authority in Penal Code § 1203.01 and Cook. The motion should establish the person’s youth-parole eligibility and say when the Board hearing is expected or whether one has already occurred. Cook also recognizes the court’s authority to receive more than the brief written statements listed in § 1203.01, consistent with Code of Civil Procedure § 187. A habeas petition is not the required first step merely to preserve this record.
An official court rule 4.480 recommends submitting a sentencing judge’s § 1203.01 statement within two weeks of sentencing so it reaches corrections staff early. Cook explains that this recommendation does not strip the court of authority to receive a later Franklin motion. Delay may still make evidence harder to obtain, and a court may consider the record already available and any prior Board hearing when deciding what further evidence would be useful. (Cook; People v. Howard (2021))
What should counsel check first?
Gather the judgment and sentencing record, the person’s date of birth and offense date, the controlling count and sentence, and any Board notice. Then identify what youth-related material is already preserved and what records, knowledgeable witnesses or evaluations might meaningfully add. Counsel can check statutory eligibility and exclusions before requesting a proceeding, and can distinguish a request to preserve evidence from any separate sentence or parole challenge. A motion need not predict the Board’s eventual decision. (Penal Code § 3051; Cook; Howard)
If you are trying to understand a California conviction and what youth-related evidence the existing record contains, the Law Offices of David S. Chesley can discuss the case documents and possible next steps. Call (800) 755-5174.