People v. Young CA2/1

── People v. Young CA2/1 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: May 15, 2026 Category: General Filed 5/15/26 P. v. Young CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE THE PEOPLE, B348864 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA196110) v. EARL YOUNG, Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Charlaine F. Olmedo, Judge. Affirmed. Marta I. Stanton, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. ________________________  1 MEMORANDUM OPINION Defendant Earl Young appeals from the denial of his second and successive petition for resentencing pursuant to Penal 2 Code section 1172.6. In a prior appeal decided last year, we affirmed the trial court’s finding that Young was ineligible for relief under section 1172.6 as a matter of law. Young’s latest petition provides no basis for revisiting our decision or reaching a different result. We accordingly affirm. A. Procedural Background In 2003, a jury convicted Young among other offenses of first degree murder and found true a special circumstance that the murder was committed during a robbery. We affirmed the conviction on direct appeal. (People v. Young (Jan. 31, 2005, B168977) [nonpub. opn.].) In 2021, Young filed a petition for resentencing pursuant to section 1172.6, which the trial court denied at the prima facie stage finding that the record of conviction showed defendant was the actual shooter. (People v. Young (Nov. 7, 2022, B317740 [nonpub. opn.].) We affirmed, finding that Young’s contentions could have been fully litigated on his direct appeal and his contentions were an improper collateral attack on the judgment 1 We resolve this case by memorandum opinion because it “is determined by a controlling statute which is not challenged for unconstitutionality and does not present any substantial question of interpretation or application.” (Cal. Stds. Jud. Admin., § 8.1(1).) We set forth only those portions of the factual and procedural history necessary to explain our disposition. 2 All unspecified statutory references are to the Penal Code. 2 and were no longer cognizable. (Ibid.) We also conducted an independent review of the entire record and found no arguable issues. (Ibid.) After this affirmance, Young filed a second and successive petition for resentencing in July 2023, which the trial court summarily denied.3 Young appealed. Young’s appointed appellate counsel filed a brief raising no issues and requesting that we exercise our discretion to independently review the record for error pursuant to People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216. In Delgadillo, our Supreme Court established procedures for cases in which counsel determines that an appeal from an order denying postconviction relief lacks merit. In such cases, “(1) counsel should file a brief informing the court of that determination, including a concise recitation of the facts bearing on the denial of the petition; and (2) the court should send, with a copy of counsel’s brief, notice to the defendant, informing the defendant of the right to file a supplemental letter or brief and that if no letter or brief i