People v. Garces CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D085853 · 2026-02-17 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from a judgment
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCD133238
Trial judge: Francis M. Devaney
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: Judith D. McConnell (author), William S. Dato

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T03:30Z · confidence high

The trial court denied Garces's petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6, finding he was not tried under a theory of liability qualifying for relief. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment after an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende and People v. Delgadillo, finding no meritorious issues.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6 “The court found Garces was not tried under any of the theories of liability that would qualify for relief under section 1172.6. The court denied the petition.”	de novo	correct	agree with court agree with court

Authorities

relied: People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 — Establishes the procedure for appointed appellate counsel to file a brief when no arguable issues are identified, requesting independent review of the record.
relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires the appellate court to independently review the record for error when appointed counsel identifies no arguable issues.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Requires appointed counsel to file a brief identifying any potentially meritorious issues and requesting leave to withdraw, subject to independent court review.

The appellate opinion: sound — The court correctly applied the Wende/Delgadillo framework to conduct an independent review of the record. It properly noted that the appellant's supplemental brief failed to address the legal basis for the trial court's denial (ineligibility based on the record of conviction) and instead raised non-meritorious claims of innocence and fabricated evidence that do not constitute arguable legal errors on the face of the record.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

unusual disposition

A model's reading — claude-fable-5-1, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:08Z · confidence low

The San Diego Superior Court denied Luis Manuel Garces's Penal Code section 1172.6 resentencing petition after appointing counsel, receiving briefing, and reviewing the record of conviction (jury instructions and verdicts), finding he was not tried under any theory of liability eligible for relief. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Delgadillo brief, Garces filed a supplemental brief asserting innocence and fabricated evidence, and the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issue, and affirmed.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of Penal Code section 1172.6 resentencing petition on the ground that the record of conviction (jury instructions and verdicts) showed Garces was not tried under felony murder, natural and probable consequences, or any other theory of imputed malice eligible for relief “The court found Garces was not tried under any of the theories of liability that would qualify for relief under section 1172.6. The court denied the petition.”	unclear	correct	unsure The opinion does not articulate a standard of review; it conducted an independent Wende/Anders-style review at counsel's request under Delgadillo and found no arguable issue. The result is plausible because denial at the prima facie stage based on jury instructions showing the defendant was tried solely as the actual killer with malice is routinely upheld, and the jury found Garces personally used a knife. However, the opinion does not describe which instructions were given or explain why they foreclose eligibility, and Garces's supplemental brief (innocence, fabricated evidence) raises matters outside the scope of section 1172.6. Without the instructions set out, the correctness of the trial court's finding cannot be independently verified from the opinion.

Authorities

relied: People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 — In appeals from denial of section 1172.6 petitions, Wende review is not constitutionally required; where counsel finds no arguable issues, the court must notify the defendant, allow a supplemental brief, and evaluate any arguments raised, with discretion to independently review the record.
relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Procedure for appellate independent review of the record when appointed counsel identifies no arguable issues in a criminal appeal.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds an appeal frivolous must file a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal, and the court must conduct its own examination of the record.
missed: People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952 — At the prima facie stage of a section 1172.6 petition, the trial court may consider the record of conviction, including jury instructions, but may deny relief without an evidentiary hearing only where the record conclusively establishes ineligibility as a matter of law without factfinding or weighing of evidence.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The court properly followed Delgadillo by inviting and addressing the defendant's supplemental brief, noting that his innocence and fabrication claims do not bear on section 1172.6 eligibility, and exercising discretion to independently review the record. It reaches a defensible result but does not identify the jury instructions given or cite People v. Lewis to explain why the record of conviction conclusively establishes ineligibility as a matter of law.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 2/17/26 P. v. Garces 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, D085853

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD133238)

LUIS MANUEL GARCES,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Francis M. Devaney, Judge. Affirmed. Luis Manuel Garces, in pro. per.; and William J. Capriola, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. In 2004, a jury convicted Luis Manuel Garces of first-degree murder (Pen. Code,1 § 187, subd. (a)), the jury found Garces personally used a knife in the offense (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1)). The jury also convicted Garces of 1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code. assault with a deadly weapon and found he personally inflicted great bodily injury (§§ 245, subd. (a)(1), 12022.7, subd. (a)). Garces was sentenced to prison for an indeterminate term of 28 years to life. In 2007, this court affirmed the convictions in an unpublished opinion (People v. Garces (Dec. 17, 2007, D045022) but modified the sentence to 32 years to life. In 2023, Garces filed a pro. per. petition for resentencing under section 1172.6. The court appointed counsel, received briefing, and reviewed the record of conviction including the jury instructions and the jury’s verdicts. The court found Garces was not tried under any of the theories of liability that would qualify for relief under section 1172.6. The court denied the petition. Garces filed a timely notice of appeal. Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 indicating counsel has not been able to identify any arguable issue for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks the court to exercise its discretion to independently review the record for error as we would if the case was controlled by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. We offered Garces the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal. Garces has responded with a supplemental brief. In his supplemental brief, Garces claims he is innocent of all charges and did not commit any criminal acts. He claims the court and counsel at trial fabricated the evidence against him and that some witnesses testified falsely. Garces does not address the validity of the court’s denial of the petition for resentencing based on the record of conviction. He simply does 2 not identify any potentially meritorious issues for reversal on appeal on the record of this case. The facts of the offenses were discussed in our opinion filed in 2007. We will not repeat the factual summary in this opinion. (People v. Garces, supra, D045022.) DISCUSSION As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a brief under the guidelines of Delgadillo 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, counsel has identified a possible issue that was considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: Did the jury instruction combined with the jury’s verdicts and findings conclusively show that appellant is ineligible for relief under section 1172.6 as a matter of law? We have exercised our discretion to independently review the record for error as required by Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any potentially meritorious issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Garces on this appeal.

3 DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, J.* WE CONCUR:

MCCONNELL, P. J.

DATO, J.

* Retired Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution. 4

Cites, in this corpus

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