Filed 6/17/26 P. v. Hernandez CA4/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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 THREE
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, G065638
v. (Super. Ct. No. 02CF2160)
ABRAHAM ALBERT OPINION
HERNANDEZ,
Defendant and Appellant.
Appeal from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of
Orange County, Kathleen E. Roberts, Judge. Affirmed.
Richard Jay Moller, under appointment by the Court of Appeal,
for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant Abraham Albert Hernandez appeals an order denying
1
his petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6. His appointed
attorney filed a brief under the procedures described in People v. Delgadillo
(2022) 14 Cal.5th 216, declaring he was unable to find any issues to raise on
Hernandez’s behalf. Having reviewed the record ourselves, we also detect no
arguable issues. We thus affirm the trial court’s order.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
One evening in 2002, Andres Cisneros was fatally shot near his
Santa Ana home, and a short time later about two miles away, Cesar Tejeda
was fatally shot near a 7-Eleven store. Following a jury trial, Hernandez was
convicted of murdering both victims. (§ 187, subd. (a).) The jury found
Hernandez personally used a firearm in committing the murders.
(§ 12022.53, subd. (d).) It also found true special circumstances allegations
that Hernandez committed multiple murders and that he acted for the
benefit of a criminal street gang. (§ 190.2, subds. (a)(3) & (a)(22).) The trial
court sentenced Hernandez to life in prison without parole, plus an
indeterminate term of 90 years to life. Another panel of this court affirmed
the judgment on direct appeal in People v. Hernandez (Nov. 21, 2008,
G039260 [nonpub. opn.]), and we incorporate that opinion by reference here
for background purposes only.
In 2022, Hernandez filed a petition for resentencing pursuant to
section 1172.6. Regarding the murder of Tejeda, the trial court ruled
Hernandez failed to make a prima facie showing for relief because the record
of conviction conclusively established he personally killed Tejeda with the
1
All statutory references are to the Penal Code.
2
intent to kill. The court therefore denied Hernandez’s request for
resentencing with respect to Tejeda’s murder.
As for the murder of Cisneros, the trial court conducted an
evidentiary hearing pursuant to section 1172.6, subdivision (d). At the
hearing, the defense called R.R. to testify about statements he made to a
detective who was investigating the murders of Cisneros and Tejeda. R.R.
testified Hernandez’s fellow gang member Felix Robles told him that he
(Robles) shot a man at a 7-Eleven with a Colt .45 pistol around the time of
the murders.
The defense also called Hernandez during the hearing. He
testified he was at Robles’s house on the night of the murders. Hernandez
also admitted he fatally shot Tejeda with a .38 caliber handgun, which is the
same type of gun that was used to kill Cisneros. Hernandez, however,
claimed he knew nothing about the Cisneros shooting.
At the hearing, the parties stipulated that witnesses to the
Cisneros murder saw the shooter flee in a Nissan Sentra and that when
shown photos of the Honda Accord that Hernandez was arrested in, they said
that car was not the getaway car. The parties also stipulated the police
mistakenly believed Hernandez’s girlfriend drove a Nissan Sentra, when in
fact she drove a Nissan Maxima.
Based on all the evidence presented at the hearing, as well as the
record of the original trial proceedings, the trial court found beyond a
reasonable doubt that Hernandez killed both Tejeda and Cisneros. It thus
denied his petition for resentencing. (See People v. Jasso (2025) 17 Cal.5th
646, 690 [the actual killer in a murder is ineligible for resentencing under
section 1172.6]; People v. Strong (2022) 13 Cal.5th 698, 710 [same].)
3
DISCUSSION
As mentioned at the outset, Hernandez’s appointed attorney was
unable to find any arguable issues to raise on Hernandez’s behalf. We
informed Hernandez of his right to file a supplemental brief, but he did not
do so. In the interest of justice, we have examined the entire record for any
arguable issues. (See People v. Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 230.)
However, our review has only confirmed appointed counsel’s conclusion that
there is no arguable basis to disturb the trial court’s denial order.
Accordingly, we affirm the order.
DISPOSITION
The trial court’s postjudgment order denying Hernandez’s
petition for resentencing is affirmed.
GOODING, J.
WE CONCUR:
MOORE, ACTING P. J.
SERVINO, J.
4