People v. Reyes CA4/1

── People v. Reyes CA4/1 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: May 12, 2026 Category: General Filed 5/12/26 P. v. Reyes CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, D086282 Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCN400895) OSIEL REYES, Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Sim von Kalinowski, Judge. Affirmed. Osiel Reyes, in pro. per., Reed Webb, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. In November 2023, Osiel Reyes entered into a plea agreement in which he pleaded guilty to one count of attempted murder (Pen. Code, §§ 667 & 187) (all further statutory references are to the Penal Code), admitted discharging a firearm (§ 12022.53), and admitted a gang allegation (§186.22). Reyes also pleaded guilty to one count of assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(2)) and admitted a strike prior.  The remaining charges and allegations were dismissed. The parties agreed Reyes would be sentenced to prison for a 20-year term. In January 2025, Reyes filed a petition for resentencing under section 1172.6. The court received briefing and held a hearing to determine if Reyes had made a prima facie showing of eligibility for relief under section 1172.6 that would apply to this case. The court found Reyes had not pleaded guilty under the prior law regarding implied malice and that there was no theory of liability for murder under section 1172.6. The court found Reyes was not eligible for resentencing and denied the petition. Reyes filed a timely notice of appeal. Appellate counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo) indicating counsel has not been able to identify any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks the court to exercise its discretion to independently review the record for error. We offered Reyes the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal. He has responded with a supplemental brief. In his brief Reyes primarily challenges his original conviction and sentence. He argues the stipulated prison term was unlawfully imposed based on a dual use of facts at sentencing. He argues his plea of guilty was the result of duress and someone else did the shooting. This is not an appeal from the conviction and sentence. This appeal is from the denial of a petition for resentencing under section 1172.6. It is not the proceeding to review the original conviction and sentence. The question on which the trial court ruled is whether there was a prima facie showing of eligibility for relief under the resentencing statute. Reyes has not presented any potentially meritorious issues for reversal on appeal. 2  We have independently reviewed the record for error in the same manner as we would in an appeal governed by People v Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. We have not discovered any potentially meritorious issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Reyes in this appeal. DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed. HUFFMAN, J.* WE CONCUR: KELETY, Acting P. J. CASTILLO, J. * Retired Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Fourth Appe