People v. Garcia CA4/2

Opinion

Filed 9/22/26 P. v. Garcia CA4/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, E086700 v. (Super.Ct.No. FSB057678)

ANDY REY GARCIA, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Annemarie G.

Pace, Judge. Affirmed.

Tracy R. LeSage, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

1 INTRODUCTION

Defendant and appellant Andy Rey Garcia appeals from a postjudgment order denying his petition for resentencing under Penal Code1 former section 1170.95.2 His appellate counsel filed a brief raising no arguable issues under People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo). We affirm.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Defendant was charged by information with murder. (§187, subd. (a), count 1.)

The information alleged that defendant personally and intentionally discharged a firearm causing great bodily injury (GBI) (§ 12022.53, subd. (d)) and personally used a firearm (§ 12022.5, subd. (a)).

On February 9, 2009, a jury found defendant guilty of the lesser included offense of second degree murder (§ 187, subd. (a)) and found true the GBI enhancement. On March 11, 2009, the court sentenced him to 15 years to life on count 1 and a consecutive term of 25 years to life on the GBI enhancement, for a total term of 40 years to life in state prison. The court struck the personal firearm enhancement.

1 All further statutory references will be to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.

2 This provision was renumbered without substantive change to section 1172.6, effective June 30, 2022. (See People v. Strong (2022) 13 Cal.5th 698, 708, fn. 2.) For the sake of clarity and consistency with defendant’s brief, we will refer to the provision as section 1172.6.

2 On or around November 27, 2024, defendant filed a petition under section 1172.6.

On December 23, 2024, the prosecutor filed a written opposition arguing that defendant previously filed two section 1172.6 petitions, which were both denied, and that defendant did not qualify for relief since he was the actual killer. On May 9, 2025, the trial court denied the petition, noting that defendant previously filed resentencing petitions that were denied in 2019 and 2024.

Defendant filed a notice of appeal of the denial of his petition, in propria persona (the NOA). The NOA appears to raise two issues/claims.

DISCUSSION

Defendant was provided notice under Delgadillo and advised that counsel filed a brief stating no arguable issues could be found, and that because this is an appeal from a postconviction proceeding, this court is not required to conduct an independent review of the record but may do so in its discretion. (Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 232.) The notice advised him that he could file a supplemental brief within 30 days. Defendant did not file an actual supplemental brief; however, his notice of appeal (NOA) raises two issues/claims. Therefore, we will effectively treat his NOA as a supplemental brief.

Where a defendant has filed a supplemental brief, a court of appeal need only evaluate the specific arguments presented in the brief. (Ibid.) “The filing of a supplemental brief or letter does not compel an independent review of the entire record to identify unraised issues.” (Ibid.)

In the NOA, defendant asserts the following: he is “a ‘Youth Offender’ in the eye’s [sic] of the law and all new changes made by the Legislature now qualify him for a 3 ‘Franklin Hearing’ at the very least.3 Including the fact that Assembly Bill 600 authorizes this Court to allow for a recall and resentencing proceeding. Due to the fact that [he] received a sentence well over 20 year’s [sic] and the facts and circumstances now allow his case; to be recalled and resentenced.”

First, defendant appears to be arguing that simply because he is a youth offender, he is entitled to a Franklin hearing. “The purpose of a Franklin proceeding is to preserve mitigating evidence relating to an offender’s youth for future parole hearings.” (People v. Howard (2021) 74 Cal.App.5th 141, 149 (Howard).) It “provides the parties an opportunity ‘to make an accurate record of the juvenile offender’s characteristics and circumstances at the time of the offense so that the Board, years later, may properly discharge its obligation to “give great weight to” youth-related factors [citation] in determining whether the offender is “fit to rejoin society” despite having committed a serious crime “while he was a child in the eyes of the law.’”” (Id. at p. 147; Franklin, supra, 63 Cal.4th at p. 284.)

“[T]he proper avenue [to request a Franklin proceeding] is to file a motion in superior court …. The motion should establish the inmate’s entitlement to a youth offender parole hearing and indicate when such hearing is anticipated to take place, or if one or more hearings have already occurred.” (In re Cook (2019) 7 Cal.5th 439, 458.)

The motion should “include the relevant criminal case information and pertinent legal 3 Although defendant did not specify the authority for a Franklin hearing, we will assume he is referring to People v. Franklin (2016) 63 Cal.4th 261 (Franklin). 4 authority.” (People v. Lipptrapp (2021) 59 Cal.App.5th 886, 893-894.) Here, there is no indication in the record that defendant filed any such motion in superior court.

Second, defendant appears to be arguing that, pursuant to Assembly Bill No. 600 (2023-2024 Reg. Sess.) (Assembly Bill 600), this court can recall and resentence him due to the facts and circumstances of this case. However, Assembly Bill 600 amended section 1172.1, to allow a trial court to recall and resentence a defendant. (People v. Brinson (2025) 112 Cal.App.5th 1040, 1046 [“Effective January 1, 2024, Assembly Bill 600 amended section 1172.1 to expand a trial court’s authority to recall and resentence on its own motion.”].) Here, defendant is appealing the denial of his petition for resentencing under section 1172.6. Thus, Assembly Bill 600 is not applicable. Having reviewed the two specific contentions identified by the defendant in his notice of appeal, we conclude that they are without merit.

5 DISPOSITION

The trial court’s order denying defendant’s resentencing petition is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

FIELDS J.

We concur:

McKINSTER Acting P. J. MENETREZ J.