Filed 9/29/26 P. v. Fisher CA1/5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or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
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FIVE
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, A175356
v. (Solano County
TIMOTHY FISHER, Super. Ct. No. F23-00436)
Defendant and Appellant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION1
Defendant Timothy Fisher appeals from the trial court’s order denying
his petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6 at the prima
facie stage.2 His appointed counsel on appeal filed a brief identifying no
arguable issues and requesting that we conduct an independent review of the
record under People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo). After
conducting an independent review of the record pursuant to the holding in
that case and evaluating the arguments raised in Fisher’s supplemental
brief, we affirm.
In February 2024, plaintiff and respondent the People of the State of
1 We resolve this case by memorandum opinion because it raises no
substantial issue of fact or law. (Cal. Stds. Jud. Admin., § 8.1.)
2 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
1
California (People) filed an information charging Fisher with one count of
attempted murder. (§§ 664, 187, subd. (a).) The information alleged that he
“unlawfully, and with malice aforethought[,] attempted to murder K.M.”3 It
further alleged that Fisher personally inflicted great bodily injury upon K.M.
under circumstances involving domestic violence (§ 12022.7, subd. (e)) and
that he personally used a deadly and dangerous weapon; a knife (§ 12022,
subd. (b)(1)). In April 2024, Fisher pled no contest to attempted murder and
admitted the special allegations. The trial court stayed the enhancements
under sections 12022.7, subdivision (e) and 12022, subdivision (b)(1) and
sentenced Fisher to seven years to life in state prison.
On October 21, 2025, Fisher filed a section 1172.6 petition for
resentencing. The form petition included the year of conviction as “2024” and
requested appointment of counsel. The record does not indicate that the trial
court ever appointed counsel. Instead, the court summarily denied the
petition on November 4, 2025, noting that Fisher was not entitled to relief as
he had pled no contest to attempted murder in 2024. Fisher filed a timely
notice of appeal.
The Delgadillo brief filed by Fisher’s counsel raises no cognizable legal
issues. We have also evaluated the arguments raised in Fisher’s
supplemental brief and find no meritorious issues to be argued on appeal.
Finally, based on our independent review of the record, we conclude that
Fisher is not entitled to relief under section 1172.6. (Delgadillo, supra, 14
Cal.5th at p. 233.)
We reach this conclusion even though the trial court apparently did not
appoint counsel to represent Fisher before it denied his petition. Generally,
“upon the filing of a facially sufficient petition,” the court is required to
3 Fisher stabbed K.M. in the neck with a knife.
2
appoint counsel if one is requested. (People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952,
970.) But its failure to do so before denying a petition is harmless under
People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, if there is no “reasonable probability
that ‘[the] petition would not have been summarily denied without an
evidentiary hearing’ had the trial court appointed counsel.” (People v. Daniel
(2020) 57 Cal.App.5th 666, 678.) Assuming that Fisher’s petition was facially
valid, a question we need not decide, the failure to appoint counsel was
harmless because the record, including the petition, conclusively shows that
Fisher was convicted in 2024 under a still-valid theory of attempted murder.
(Id. at p. 679.) Indeed, with respect to attempted murder, section 1172.6 only
provides relief for persons convicted of “attempted murder under the natural
and probable consequences doctrine.” (§ 1172.6, subd. (a).) That is not the
case here.
DISPOSITION
The order denying Fisher’s petition for resentencing is affirmed.
CHOU, J.
WE CONCUR.
JACKSON, P. J.
BURNS, J.
A175356/ P. v. Fisher
3