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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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.
6