People v. Reyes CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from a judgment
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCN400895
- Trial judge
- Sim Von Kalinowski
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Julia C. Kelety (author), Michele M. Castillo
Analysis
The trial court denied Reyes's petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6, finding he had not made a prima facie showing of eligibility because his guilty plea was not based on the prior implied malice theory. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment, conducting an independent review of the record and finding no potentially meritorious issues for reversal.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Denial of petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6“The court found Reyes had not pleaded guilty under the prior law regarding implied malice and that there was no theory of liability for murder under section 1172.6. The court found Reyes was not eligible for resentencing and 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 appellate counsel to file a brief indicating no arguable issues exist, requesting the court to independently review the record.
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appellate courts to independently review the record for error when counsel identifies no arguable issues on appeal.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion correctly identifies that the appeal is limited to the denial of the section 1172.6 petition, not the underlying conviction. It properly applies the Wende/Delgadillo framework to conduct an independent review of the record and affirms the trial court's determination that the plea was not based on the prior implied malice theory.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionThe trial court denied Osiel Reyes's Penal Code section 1172.6 resentencing petition at the prima facie stage, finding that his November 2023 guilty plea to attempted murder was not entered under any now-invalid theory of liability. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a Delgadillo no-issues brief, Reyes filed a supplemental brief attacking his original conviction and sentence, and the Court of Appeal, after independent Wende-style review, found no arguable issues and affirmed.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Denial of section 1172.6 petition at the prima facie stage on the ground that Reyes did not plead guilty under a theory of liability abrogated by Senate Bill 1437/775“The court found Reyes was not eligible for resentencing and denied the petition.” | unclear | correct | agree with court Section 1172.6 relief for attempted murder reaches only convictions under the natural and probable consequences doctrine. Reyes pleaded guilty in November 2023, years after SB 1437 (eff. 2019) and SB 775 (eff. 2022) eliminated that theory, so as a matter of law he could not have been convicted under a now-invalid theory and is ineligible. The opinion does not state the standard of review (a prima facie denial is reviewed de novo under People v. Lewis) and does not spell out the timing rationale, but the result is compelled by the statute and the plea date recited in the opinion. |
Refusal to entertain Reyes's supplemental-brief attacks on his original conviction and stipulated sentence (dual use of facts, duress, actual-shooter identity) in an appeal from a section 1172.6 denial“This is not an appeal from the conviction and sentence. This appeal is from the denial of a petition for resentencing under section 1172.6.” | de novo | correct | agree with court An appeal from an order denying a section 1172.6 petition is limited to that order; the underlying judgment became final long ago and cannot be collaterally attacked in this proceeding. Claims that the plea was coerced or the stipulated term unlawful are outside the scope of the resentencing statute, which does not reopen guilt or sentencing issues unrelated to the eligibility question. The court correctly confined its review to the prima facie ruling. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 — In an appeal from a postconviction section 1172.6 denial, Wende review is not constitutionally required; when counsel files a no-issues brief the court must evaluate any supplemental brief the defendant files and may, in its discretion, independently review the record.
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Procedure for independent appellate review of the entire record when appointed counsel finds no arguable issues on a first appeal of right.
- missed: People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.4th 952 — Sets the prima facie standard under section 1172.6: the court takes the petition's allegations as true but may deny relief where the record of conviction establishes ineligibility as a matter of law; the ruling is reviewed de novo. The opinion reviews a prima facie denial without citing or applying this governing standard.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The result is plainly correct because a 2023 attempted-murder plea could not rest on the natural and probable consequences doctrine abolished years earlier, and Reyes's supplemental arguments attack a long-final judgment outside the scope of a section 1172.6 appeal. The opinion, however, never articulates the standard of review or cites People v. Lewis, does not explain the plea-date rationale, and contains a miscitation of the attempted murder statute (section 667 instead of 664), leaving the reasoning thinner than it should be.
Opinion
Filed 5/12/26 P. v. Reyes 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, D086282
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCN400895)
OSIEL REYES,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Sim von Kalinowski, Judge. Affirmed. Osiel Reyes, in pro. per., Reed Webb, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. In November 2023, Osiel Reyes entered into a plea agreement in which he pleaded guilty to one count of attempted murder (Pen. Code, §§ 667 & 187) (all further statutory references are to the Penal Code), admitted discharging a firearm (§ 12022.53), and admitted a gang allegation (§186.22). Reyes also pleaded guilty to one count of assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(2)) and admitted a strike prior. The remaining charges and allegations were dismissed. The parties agreed Reyes would be sentenced to prison for a 20-year term. In January 2025, Reyes filed a petition for resentencing under section 1172.6. The court received briefing and held a hearing to determine if Reyes had made a prima facie showing of eligibility for relief under section 1172.6 that would apply to this case. The court found Reyes had not pleaded guilty under the prior law regarding implied malice and that there was no theory of liability for murder under section 1172.6. The court found Reyes was not eligible for resentencing and denied the petition. Reyes filed a timely notice of appeal. Appellate counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo) indicating counsel has not been able to identify any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks the court to exercise its discretion to independently review the record for error. We offered Reyes the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal. He has responded with a supplemental brief. In his brief Reyes primarily challenges his original conviction and sentence. He argues the stipulated prison term was unlawfully imposed based on a dual use of facts at sentencing. He argues his plea of guilty was the result of duress and someone else did the shooting. This is not an appeal from the conviction and sentence. This appeal is from the denial of a petition for resentencing under section 1172.6. It is not the proceeding to review the original conviction and sentence. The question on which the trial court ruled is whether there was a prima facie showing of eligibility for relief under the resentencing statute. Reyes has not presented any potentially meritorious issues for reversal on appeal.
2 We have independently reviewed the record for error in the same manner as we would in an appeal governed by People v Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. We have not discovered any potentially meritorious issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Reyes in this appeal. DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, J.* WE CONCUR:
KELETY, Acting P. J.
CASTILLO, 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. 3
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Delgadillo S266305 · 2022-12-19
- People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12