People v. Garcia CA2/8

Opinion

Filed 8/3/26 P. v. Garcia CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

THE PEOPLE, B344010

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA507083-01) v.

ANDRES CORTEZ GARCIA,

Defendants and Appellants.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Ray G. Jurado, Judge. Affirmed.

Marta I. Stanton, for Defendant and Appellant.

Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant Attorney General, Scott A. Taryle and Blythe J. Leszkay, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_________________________ A jury convicted appellant Andres Garcia and co-defendant Drake Nathaniel Loza of willful, deliberate and premeditated attempted murder in violation of Penal Code1 sections 187, subdivision (a), and 644. The jury found true that Garcia personally inflicted great bodily injury and personally used a deadly weapon in violation of sections 12022.7, subdivision (a) and 12022, subdivision (b)(1). The jury also convicted Garcia of a second count—possessing a weapon while in custody in violation of section 4502, subdivision (a). Garcia admitted he suffered one prior strike conviction for attempted murder. The trial court sentenced Garcia to 18 years to life in prison, comprising seven years to life, doubled pursuant to the Three Strikes law, for the attempted murder, plus a consecutive three-year term for the great bodily injury enhancement. The court imposed a one-year term for the personal use of a weapon enhancement. For count 2, possession of a weapon in custody, the court imposed a concurrent term of two years. Garcia timely appealed. On appeal, Garcia joins in three of the challenges co- defendant Loza raised in his separate appeal to our court in Case No. B344010: 1) as to the attempted murder charge, the trial court erred in not instructing the jury on the lesser included offense of assault with a deadly weapon; 2) as to the same charge, the trial court erred in not instructing the jury on the lesser related offense of assault with a deadly weapon; and 3) the court erred in imposing concurrent punishment for the weapon possession count instead of staying the sentence under section 1 Statutory references are to the Penal Code.

2 654. Garcia offers no additional facts or legal argument in support of his appeal. We affirmed Loza’s judgment of conviction. Because Garcia’s appeal is identical to Loza’s, we deem his appeal appropriate for disposition by memorandum opinion in accordance with the California Standards of Judicial Administration, section 8.1 (See People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847, 850−853 [use of memorandum opinions].) The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

STRATTON, P. J.

We concur:

VIRAMONTES, J.

SCHERB, J.