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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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.
3