Filed 10/5/26 P. v. Garcilaso CA4/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THE PEOPLE, D086717
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. SCN377785
v.
ANDREW LEON GARCILASO,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County,
David J. Danielsen, Judge. Affirmed.
Rex Adam Williams, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for
Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.
This appeal is from a judgment following resentencing under Penal
Code section 1172.75. This appeal is governed by the court’s decision in
People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216.
Retired Judge of the San Diego Superior Court assigned by the Chief
Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.
In 2017, Andrew Garcilaso pleaded guilty to two counts of carjacking
(Pen. Code, § 215, subd.(a)), unlawful taking and driving a vehicle (Veh.
Code, § 10851, subd. (a)), and one count of reckless driving in evading police
(Veh. Code, § 2800.2, subd.(a)). Garcilaso also admitted a strike, a prison
prior and a serious felony prior conviction.
Although counsel’s brief states the court sentenced Garcilaso to a total
unstayed term of 14 years and four months, the record reflects a total
unstayed term of 15 years and eight months.
In response to the motion for resentencing, the court vacated the
sentence and granted resentencing. The court declined to strike the “strike
prior” and resentenced Garcilaso to a total term of 11 years and 4 months.
Garcilaso filed a timely notice of appeal. Appellate counsel has filed a
brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Counsel
acknowledges that appeals from a full resentencing under Penal Code section
1172.75 are governed by the decision in Delgadillo. We decline to decide
which line of analysis applies. The difference between the cases is whether
the court has a duty to independently review the record for error. We will
independently review the record for error in the exercise of our discretion.
DISCUSSION
As we have noted appellate counsel asks the court to independently
review the record for error. To assist the court in its review, and in
compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, counsel has
identified a possible issue for reversal on appeal that has been considered in
evaluating the potential merits of this appeal. That issue seems to be the
question of the scope of the appellate court’s duty to independently review the
record. As we have stated, we have exercised our discretion to review the
record for error.
Our review of the record has not discovered any arguable issues for
reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Garcilaso in this
appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, J.
WE CONCUR:
DO, Acting P. J.
RUBIN, J.
Retired Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate
District, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the
California Constitution.