People v. Fernandez CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D083282 · 2024-07-15 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from an order
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCN248790
Trial judge: Runston G. Maino
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), O'Rourke, Julia C. Kelety

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:09Z · confidence high

The trial court denied Fernandez's petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6, determining he was ineligible as the actual killer based on his guilty plea and factual basis. The Court of Appeal affirmed the denial after conducting an independent review of the record pursuant to a Wende/Delgadillo brief, finding no meritorious issues.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6 without issuing an order to show cause or holding an evidentiary hearing. “The court determined that Fernandez was the actual killer and was therefore ineligible for resentencing under section 1172.6. The court denied the petition without issuing an order to show cause or holding an evidentiary hearing.”	de novo	correct	agree with court The appellate court affirmed the denial, finding no error in the trial court's determination that Fernandez was the actual killer based on the factual basis of his guilty plea, which precluded eligibility for resentencing under section 1172.6.

Authorities

relied: People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 — Establishes the procedure for appellate counsel to file a brief when no meritorious issues are identified, requesting independent review of the record.
relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appellate courts to independently review the record for error when counsel files a Wende brief indicating no meritorious issues.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Requires appointed counsel to identify potentially meritorious issues for the court's independent review when filing a no-merit brief.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly follows the Wende/Delgadillo protocol for independent review when counsel identifies no meritorious issues. The court properly relied on the factual basis of the guilty plea to determine ineligibility for resentencing under section 1172.6, which is a standard legal principle in such cases.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

unusual disposition

A model's reading — claude-fable-5-1, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:29Z · confidence low

In 2023 the San Diego Superior Court denied Alejandro Avalos Fernandez's Penal Code section 1172.6 resentencing petition at the prima facie stage, without issuing an order to show cause, finding from the record of conviction—including his own plea statement that he raped and killed the victim—that he was the actual killer and thus ineligible. On appeal, counsel filed a Delgadillo brief, Fernandez filed a letter seeking clemency rather than raising issues, and the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issues, and affirmed.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of section 1172.6 petition at the prima facie stage without issuing an order to show cause or holding an evidentiary hearing, on the ground that the record of conviction showed Fernandez was the actual killer “The court determined that Fernandez was the actual killer and was therefore ineligible for resentencing under section 1172.6. The court denied the petition without issuing an order to show cause or holding an evidentiary hearing.”	unclear	correct	agree with court Under section 1172.6 and People v. Lewis, a trial court may deny a petition at the prima facie stage only if the record of conviction establishes ineligibility as a matter of law without factfinding. Fernandez's own factual-basis statement at his change of plea—'I unlawfully raped and during the course of the rape, killed [G.C.]'—is a personal admission that he was the actual killer, not a mere stipulation to a transcript, so denial without an order to show cause appears consistent with Lewis. The opinion, however, never articulates the standard or explains why the admission is conclusive, so the conclusion is defensible but thinly supported in the opinion itself.
Reliance on the guilty plea and its factual basis to refute the petition's allegations without an evidentiary hearing (the second Anders issue identified by counsel) “Whether Fernandez’s guilty plea refuted his allegations in his petition without holding an evidentiary hearing.”	unclear	correct	agree with court The plea colloquy is part of the record of conviction that a court may consult at the prima facie stage. Because Fernandez personally admitted killing the victim during the rape, the record refutes any claim that he was convicted under a felony-murder or natural-and-probable-consequences theory as a non-killer; an actual killer is ineligible under the amended statute. The appellate court did not analyze this expressly but its independent review reached a result consistent with governing law.

Authorities

relied: People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 — Procedures for appeals from denial of section 1172.6 petitions where appointed counsel finds no arguable issues; Wende review is not constitutionally required but the court may exercise discretion to review the record independently and must address any issues raised in the defendant's own brief.
relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Appellate court independently reviews the entire record when appointed counsel files a no-issues brief in a first appeal of right.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds an appeal frivolous should file a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal.
missed: People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952 — At the prima facie stage of a section 1172.6 petition the court may consult the record of conviction but must accept the petitioner's allegations as true and may deny only where the record establishes ineligibility as a matter of law without weighing evidence or factfinding.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The result is defensible: a petitioner who personally admitted in his plea colloquy that he killed the victim is ineligible for section 1172.6 relief as a matter of law, and Fernandez's own letter raised no issue regarding the denial. But the opinion does not state the standard of review, cite Lewis, or explain why the plea admission conclusively establishes actual-killer status, leaving the key legal step unarticulated.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 7/15/24 P. v. Fernandez CA4/1 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.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE, D083282

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCN248790)

ALEJANDRO AVALOS FERNANDEZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Runston G. Maino, Judge. Affirmed. Alejandro Avalos Fernandez, in pro. per.; and James M. Crawford, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. In 2010, Alejandro Avalos Fernandez entered into a plea agreement.

He pleaded guilty to first degree murder (Pen. Code,1 § 187, subd. (a); count 1); rape of a person over 70 years of age and admitted he personally inflicted great bodily injury (§§ 261, subd. (a)(2); count 2); assault with intent 1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code. to commit a felony (§ 220; count 5); and admitted he personally inflicted great bodily injury (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)). In his change of plea, Fernandez provided a factual basis for the plea, “on or about September 1, 2001, I unlawfully raped and during the course of the rape, killed [G.C.]; and on April 11, 2004, I assaulted [R.J.] with the intent to commit rape, and in the course of that assault personally inflicted great bodily injury on [R.J.].” The court sentenced Fernandez to an indeterminate term of 25 years to life plus a determinate term of nine years in prison. . In 2023, Fernandez filed a petition for resentencing under section 1172.6. The court appointed counsel, received briefing, reviewed the record of conviction, and held a hearing. The court determined that Fernandez was the actual killer and was therefore ineligible for resentencing under section 1172.6. The court denied the petition without issuing an order to show cause or holding an evidentiary hearing. Fernandez filed a timely notice of appeal. Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo) indicating counsel has not been able to identify any potentially meritorious issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks the court to exercise its discretion to independently review the record for error under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). We advised Fernandez he could file his own brief on appeal. He has responded with a brief letter. Fernandez does not address any potential issues regarding the denial of his petition for resentencing. He takes responsibility for his crime and asks the court for clemency, which is not within the court’s authority in this case. Fernandez’s submission does not raise any potentially meritorious issues for reversal of the current order.

2 We do not believe it is necessary to try to construct a statement of facts regarding the convictions based on guilty pleas. DISCUSSION As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a Delgadillo brief and asks the court to independently review the record for error. To assist the court in its review, and in compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), counsel identifies two possible issues that were considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal. 1. Whether the court erred in denying the petition without issuing an order to show cause. 2. Whether Fernandez’s guilty plea refuted his allegations in his petition without holding an evidentiary hearing. We have independently reviewed the record for error as requested by appellant. We have not discovered any potentially meritorious issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Fernandez on this appeal.

3 DISPOSITION The order denying appellant’s petition for resentencing under section 1172.6 is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

O’ROURKE, J.

KELETY, J.

Cites, in this corpus

People v. Delgadillo S266305 · 2022-12-19
People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12