People v. Albarran CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D083995 · 2024-11-14 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from a judgment
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCD187650
Trial judge: Frederick Maguire
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), Judith D. McConnell, Julia C. Kelety

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:00Z · confidence low

The trial court denied Albarran's petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6 after an evidentiary hearing, finding the prosecution proved his guilt of first-degree murder beyond a reasonable doubt under current law. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment after an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende, finding no arguable issues for reversal.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6 “At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court found the prosecution had proven Albarran guilty of first-degree murder under current law. The court denied the petition for resentencing.”	unclear	not reached	unsure The appellate court did not apply a specific standard of review (such as substantial evidence or de novo) to the trial court's factual findings. Instead, the court conducted a general independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende and found no arguable issues for reversal, effectively affirming the denial without analyzing the specific legal standard for the second-stage determination.

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appointed appellate counsel to independently review the record for error when no arguable issues are identified.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Requires counsel to identify potential issues and the court to conduct an independent review of the record in cases where counsel finds no arguable issues.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is procedurally sound in its adherence to Wende/Anders requirements by conducting an independent review. However, it is substantively thin because it fails to articulate the standard of review for the trial court's factual findings or address the specific legal arguments regarding the sufficiency of the evidence under current law, relying solely on the absence of arguable issues.

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

After an evidentiary hearing under Penal Code section 1172.6, the trial court found the prosecution proved Odilon Albarran guilty of first-degree murder under current law and denied his resentencing petition. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Wende brief, Albarran filed a supplemental brief raising no new 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 resentencing petition after evidentiary hearing, based on finding that the prosecution proved first-degree murder beyond a reasonable doubt under current law “At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court found the prosecution had proven Albarran guilty of first-degree murder under current law. The court denied the petition for resentencing.”	unclear	correct	unsure The opinion does not state a standard of review or recite the evidence from the evidentiary hearing; it simply reports that an independent Wende/Anders review disclosed no arguable issues. Nothing in the opinion suggests legal error, but the record quoted is too thin to independently confirm that substantial evidence supported the trial court's finding. The court also framed independent review as 'required' by Wende without addressing People v. Delgadillo, which holds Wende review is not constitutionally required in section 1172.6 appeals, though the court's discretionary independent review was permissible and does not affect the result.

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — When appointed appellate counsel finds no arguable issues, counsel may file a brief so stating and the appellate court conducts an independent review of the record for arguable issues.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds an appeal wholly frivolous should so advise the court and identify anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal.
missed: People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 — Wende/Anders independent review procedures are not constitutionally required in appeals from denial of section 1172.6 petitions; when counsel finds no arguable issues the court must notify the defendant, evaluate any supplemental brief, and may but need not independently review the record.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The court reached a defensible result by independently reviewing the record and addressing the defendant's supplemental brief, which exceeds what Delgadillo requires in a section 1172.6 appeal. However, the opinion describes Wende review as 'required' without citing Delgadillo, identifies no standard of review, and recites none of the evidence supporting the trial court's finding, leaving gaps in its explanation.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 11/14/24 P. v. Albarran 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, D083995

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD187650)

ODILON ALBARRAN,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Frederick Maguire, Judge. Affirmed. Odilon Albarran, in pro. per.; and Aaron J. Schechter, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. In 2006, a jury convicted Odilon Albarran of first-degree murder (Pen.

Code,1 § 187, subd. (a)). The jury found he personally used a deadly weapon and committed the murder during a robbery. The court sentenced Albarran to life in prison without the possibility of parole.

1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code. Albarran appealed and this court affirmed the judgment in an unpublished opinion. (People v. Albarran (Jan. 13, 2009, D050959).) In July 2022, Albarran filed a petition for resentencing under section 1172.6. The trial court denied the petition at the prima facie hearing. Albarran appealed and this court reversed the order and remanded the case for an evidentiary hearing. (People v. Albarran (Nov. 9, 2023, D081608).) On remand, the trial court issued an order to show cause and held an evidentiary hearing. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court found the prosecution had proven Albarran guilty of first-degree murder under current law. The court denied the petition for resentencing. Albarran filed a timely notice of appeal. Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) indicating counsel has not been able to identify any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks the court to independently review the record for error as required by Wende. We offered Albarran the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal. He has responded with a supplemental brief in which he simply cites the possible issues set forth in the opening brief. Albarran does not identify any other possible issues or point to any error by the trial court. In short, he does not raise any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. The facts of the offense are fully set forth in our opinion in the original appeal. We will not repeat the factual summary here. DISCUSSION As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a Wende brief and asks the court to review the record for error as required by Wende. To assist the court in its rereview, and in compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 2 U.S. 738 (Anders), counsel has identified several possible issues that were considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: 1. What standard of appellate review should be applied to the review of the trial court’s decision following an evidentiary hearing? 2. Whether the trial court erred in finding Albarran was proved guilty of murder beyond a reasonable doubt under current law. 3. Whether the trial court erred in denying Albarran’s petition for resentencing. We have independently reviewed the record for error as required by Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Albarran on this appeal. DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, J.

WE CONCUR:

McCONNELL, P. J.

KELETY, J.

Cites, in this corpus

People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12