People v. Stanley CA2/4

── People v. Stanley CA2/4 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: April 22, 2026 Category: General Filed 4/22/26 P. v. Stanley CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR THE PEOPLE, B342564 (Los Angeles County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. A776407) v. MARK STANLEY, Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL from a postconviction order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, William C. Ryan, Judge. Affirmed. Brad J. Poore, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.  Defendant Mark Stanley appeals from a postconviction order denying his petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.91.1 His appointed appellate counsel filed a brief raising no issues and requesting we proceed under People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo). Defendant has filed his own supplemental brief. We affirm. BACKGROUND In 1987, defendant was convicted of second degree murder (§ 187, subd. (a)) and willful cruelty towards a child (§ 273a, subd. (1)) with a great bodily injury enhancement (§ 12022.7). He was sentenced to life imprisonment with 15 years minimum parole eligibility plus a consecutive term of seven years. In April 2022, defendant filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus and a motion for recall and resentencing under section 1170.91, subdivision (b), which provides a resentencing process for certain defendants who may suffer from a condition as a result of their military service. Defendant sought immediate release from the remaining portion of his indeterminate sentence. The trial court initially denied the resentencing motion. In July 2022, however, the court reconsidered its ruling, found a prima facie case for resentencing eligibility, and appointed defendant counsel. Following additional briefing, the submission of evidence, and the issuance of orders for defendant to appear remotely, the court held a suitability hearing in September 2024. Defendant appeared remotely and was represented by appointed 1 Subsequent unspecified references to statutes are to the current or earlier version of the Penal Code, or to the present identical but renumbered version. 2 counsel at the hearing. After taking the matter under submission, the court issued an order denying the motion. DISCUSSION Where, as here, a defendant files a supplemental brief or letter in an appeal taken from a postconviction order, we must “evaluate the specific arguments presented in that brief” and issue a written opinion. (Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 232.) Three arguments can be discerned in defendant’s supplemental brief disputing the adjudication of his section 1170.91 motion. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rules 8.360(a), 8.204(a)(1).) Before we address each argument, we conclude defendant is categorically ineligible for section 1170.91 relief. At the time defendant filed his petition, section 1170.91 extended resentencing eligibility only to “defendants who were eligible for determinate sentences.” (People v. Sherman (2023) 91 Cal.App.5th 325, 329 (Sherman); see former § 1170.91, subd. (b), added by Stats. 2018, ch. 523, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 2019.) As defendant was (and is) currently serving the remainder of his indeterminate sentence for murder (see § 190, s