People v. Sanchez CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from a judgment
- Trial court
- Superior Court of Riverside County · No. BAF003430
- Trial judge
- Joshlyn R. Pulliam
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Buchanan (author), Julia C. Kelety
Analysis
The trial court denied Sanchez's petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6, finding him ineligible for relief because the jury convicted him based on implied malice from his personal behavior rather than prohibited theories of liability. The Court of Appeal affirmed the denial, finding no error in the trial court's determination after an independent review of the record.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Denial of petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6“The court held a hearing and found Sanchez ineligible for relief under section 1172.6 and denied the petition without conducting an evidentiary hearing.” | de novo | correct | agree with court The appellate court independently reviewed the record and found no error, specifically rejecting the appellant's argument that the prosecutor argued imputed malice, noting instead that the prosecutor argued Sanchez acted with implied malice personally. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 — Establishes the procedure for appointed appellate counsel to file a brief indicating no meritorious issues have been identified, allowing the court to independently review the record.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 396 U.S. 738 — Requires appointed counsel to identify potentially meritorious issues for the court's independent review when filing a no-merit brief.
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Establishes the standard for independent appellate review of the record in criminal cases where counsel files a no-merit brief.
The appellate opinion: sound — sound
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionThe Riverside County Superior Court denied Oscar Sanchez's Penal Code section 1172.6 resentencing petition at the prima facie stage, finding after reviewing the record of conviction that the 2005 jury received no felony-murder, natural-and-probable-consequences, or aiding-and-abetting instructions and convicted him of second degree murder on his own implied malice. Appointed counsel filed a Delgadillo brief, Sanchez filed a supplemental brief attacking the original trial and his appellate counsel, and the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issue, and affirmed.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Denial of section 1172.6 petition at the prima facie stage without an evidentiary hearing, based on the jury instructions in the record of conviction showing no now-invalid theory of murder liability was presented“The court found there were no jury instructions on felony murder, natural and probable consequences or aiding and abetting. The jury found Sanchez guilty based on implied malice from his personal behavior in the commission of a dangerous act.” | unclear | correct | agree with court Under People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, a trial court may deny a section 1172.6 petition at the prima facie stage when the record of conviction, including the jury instructions, establishes ineligibility as a matter of law without factfinding. Where no felony-murder, natural-and-probable-consequences, or other imputed-malice instruction was given, the jury necessarily found the defendant personally acted with malice, so he could still be convicted under current law. Sanchez himself conceded no such instructions were given, and the court reviewed the prosecutor's closing argument and found it argued implied malice by Sanchez personally, not imputed malice. The result follows from binding authority even though the opinion did not expressly cite Lewis or state a standard of review. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 — When appointed counsel finds no arguable issues in an appeal from denial of a section 1172.6 petition, Wende procedures do not apply, but the Court of Appeal must evaluate any supplemental brief filed by the defendant and has discretion to independently review the record.
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Establishes the independent-review procedure for no-issue briefs in first appeals of right; the opinion cites it to note that procedure does not govern postconviction 1172.6 appeals under Delgadillo.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed appellate counsel who finds no meritorious issues should identify in the brief anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal.
- missed: People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.4th 952 — At the prima facie stage of a section 1172.6 petition the court may consider the record of conviction, including jury instructions, and may deny the petition only where the record establishes ineligibility as a matter of law without weighing evidence; the opinion reached a result consistent with Lewis but did not cite it.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The court reached the correct result: a record of conviction showing no imputed-malice instructions defeats a 1172.6 petition as a matter of law, and the court addressed Sanchez's supplemental-brief contention about the prosecutor's closing argument. The opinion is thin, however: it states no standard of review, omits People v. Lewis, the controlling prima facie authority, and contains several citation errors (Delgadillo dated 2002, Wende cited to Cal.5th, Anders cited to 396 U.S.).
Opinion
Filed 7/2/26 P. v. Sanchez 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, D086058
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. BAF003430)
v.
OSCAR RAFAEL SANCHEZ,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Riverside County, Joshlyn R. Pulliam, Judge. Affirmed. Oscar Rafael Sanchez, in pro. per., and Jennifer A. Gambale, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent. In 2005, a jury convicted Oscar Rafael Sanchez of second degree murder (Pen. Code,1 § 187). Sanchez was sentenced to an indeterminate term of 15 years to life in prison. In April 2024, Sanchez filed a pro per petition for resentencing under section 1172.6. The court appointed counsel, received briefing, and 1 Further statutory references are to the Penal Code. considered the record of conviction including the jury instructions. The court held a hearing and found Sanchez ineligible for relief under section 1172.6 and denied the petition without conducting an evidentiary hearing. The court found there were no jury instructions on felony murder, natural and probable consequences or aiding and abetting. The jury found Sanchez guilty based on implied malice from his personal behavior in the commission of a dangerous act. Sanchez filed a timely notice of appeal. Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Delgadillo (2002) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo) indicating counsel has not been able to identify any potentially meritorious issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel recognizes the procedure set forth in People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.5th 436.) do not apply to cases filed under the authority of Delgadillo. Counsel notes the Delgadillo opinion does grant to the appellate courts the discretion to independently review the appellate record for error. Counsel asks the court to exercise its discretion to conduct such review. We advised Sanchez he could file his own brief on appeal. Sanchez has filed a lengthy document as his supplemental brief. The brief principally focuses on the proceedings in the original trial in 2005. He recognizes this appeal is not from the original trial and he acknowledges there were no jury instructions given at the trial on now prohibited theories of liability. He appears to argue that the conviction for second degree murder was based on a jury finding that he acted with implied malice. Sanchez also argues his appellate counsel was ineffective for filing a “Delgadillo” brief. Appellant’s supplemental brief does not raise any potentially meritorious issues for reversal on appeal.
2 DISCUSSION As we have noted appellate counsel has filed a Delgadillo brief and asks the court to exercise its discretion to independently review the record for error. To assist the court in its review and in compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 396 U.S. 738 (Anders) counsel has identified a possible issue that was considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: whether the court erred in finding Sanchez ineligible for relief at the prima facie stage of the review process. We have independently reviewed the record for error. We have not discovered any potentially meritorious issues for reversal on appeal. We have reviewed the portion of the prosecutor’s closing argument attached to Sanchez’s supplemental brief and we do not agree with Sanchez that the prosecutor argued a theory of imputed malice to the jury. Rather, the prosecutor was arguing that Sanchez himself acted with implied malice. Competent counsel has represented Sanchez in this appeal.
3 DISPOSITION The order denying appellant’s petition for resentencing under section 1172.6 is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, J.* WE CONCUR:
BUCHANAN, Acting P. J.
KELETY, 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