People v. Sanchez CA4/1

Opinion

Filed 7/2/26 P. v. Sanchez 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, D086058

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. BAF003430)

v.

OSCAR RAFAEL SANCHEZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Riverside County, Joshlyn R. Pulliam, Judge. Affirmed. Oscar Rafael Sanchez, in pro. per., and Jennifer A. Gambale, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent. In 2005, a jury convicted Oscar Rafael Sanchez of second degree murder (Pen. Code,1 § 187). Sanchez was sentenced to an indeterminate term of 15 years to life in prison. In April 2024, Sanchez filed a pro per petition for resentencing under section 1172.6. The court appointed counsel, received briefing, and

1 Further statutory references are to the Penal Code. considered the record of conviction including the jury instructions. The court held a hearing and found Sanchez ineligible for relief under section 1172.6 and denied the petition without conducting an evidentiary hearing. The court found there were no jury instructions on felony murder, natural and probable consequences or aiding and abetting. The jury found Sanchez guilty based on implied malice from his personal behavior in the commission of a dangerous act. Sanchez filed a timely notice of appeal. Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Delgadillo (2002) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo) indicating counsel has not been able to identify any potentially meritorious issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel recognizes the procedure set forth in People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.5th 436.) do not apply to cases filed under the authority of Delgadillo. Counsel notes the Delgadillo opinion does grant to the appellate courts the discretion to independently review the appellate record for error. Counsel asks the court to exercise its discretion to conduct such review. We advised Sanchez he could file his own brief on appeal. Sanchez has filed a lengthy document as his supplemental brief. The brief principally focuses on the proceedings in the original trial in 2005. He recognizes this appeal is not from the original trial and he acknowledges there were no jury instructions given at the trial on now prohibited theories of liability. He appears to argue that the conviction for second degree murder was based on a jury finding that he acted with implied malice. Sanchez also argues his appellate counsel was ineffective for filing a “Delgadillo” brief. Appellant’s supplemental brief does not raise any potentially meritorious issues for reversal on appeal.

2 DISCUSSION As we have noted appellate counsel has filed a Delgadillo brief and asks the court to exercise its discretion to independently review the record for error. To assist the court in its review and in compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 396 U.S. 738 (Anders) counsel has identified a possible issue that was considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: whether the court erred in finding Sanchez ineligible for relief at the prima facie stage of the review process. We have independently reviewed the record for error. We have not discovered any potentially meritorious issues for reversal on appeal. We have reviewed the portion of the prosecutor’s closing argument attached to Sanchez’s supplemental brief and we do not agree with Sanchez that the prosecutor argued a theory of imputed malice to the jury. Rather, the prosecutor was arguing that Sanchez himself acted with implied malice. Competent counsel has represented Sanchez in this appeal.

3 DISPOSITION The order denying appellant’s petition for resentencing under section 1172.6 is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, J.*

WE CONCUR:

BUCHANAN, Acting P. J.

KELETY, 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. 4