Filed 8/14/26 P. v. Morales 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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, D086758
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. SCD104976)
v.
MARK J. MORALES,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County,
Robert F. O’Neill, Judge. Affirmed.
Mark J. Morales, in pro. per., and Jason L. Jones, under appointment
by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.
Mark J. Morales was convicted of murder in 1995 and other crimes and
was sentenced to prison for life without parole. In 2025 Morales made a
motion to be granted a hearing under People v. Franklin (2016) 63 Cal.4th
261, and In re Cook (2019) 7 Cal.5th 439. The trial court summarily denied
the motion, citing People v. Hardin (2024) 15 Cal.5th 834.
Morales filed a timely notice of appeal.
Appellate counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v.
Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216, indicating counsel has not been able to
identify any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel notes this court
has the discretion to independently review the record for error.
We notified Morales that he could file his own brief on appeal. Morales
has filed a brief. In his brief, Morales argues other prisoners who are
similarly situated have access to youthful offender programs that he is being
denied. Morales has not raised any issues that are arguably sufficient to
justify relief on this record.
DISCUSSION
As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a Delgadillo brief and
argues the court has the authority to independently review the record for
error. Given the court’s authority to review the record, counsel has identified
a possible issue that was considered in evaluating the potential merits of this
appeal. Specifically, counsel raises the possible issue in compliance with
Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738: whether the court erred in denying
the motion for a Franklin hearing in light of People v. Hardin, supra, 15
Cal.5th 834.
The court has independently reviewed the record for error. We have
not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Competent
counsel has represented Morales in this appeal.
2
DISPOSITION
The order denying Morales’s motion for a Franklin hearing is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, J.*
WE CONCUR:
O’ROURKE, Acting P. J.
CASTILLO, 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.
3