People v. Albarran CA4/1

Filed 11/14/24 P. v. Albarran CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, D083995

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD187650)

ODILON ALBARRAN,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Frederick Maguire, Judge. Affirmed. Odilon Albarran, in pro. per.; and Aaron J. Schechter, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. In 2006, a jury convicted Odilon Albarran of first-degree murder (Pen.

Code,1 § 187, subd. (a)). The jury found he personally used a deadly weapon and committed the murder during a robbery. The court sentenced Albarran to life in prison without the possibility of parole.

1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code.

Albarran appealed and this court affirmed the judgment in an unpublished opinion. (People v. Albarran (Jan. 13, 2009, D050959).) In July 2022, Albarran filed a petition for resentencing under section 1172.6. The trial court denied the petition at the prima facie hearing. Albarran appealed and this court reversed the order and remanded the case for an evidentiary hearing. (People v. Albarran (Nov. 9, 2023, D081608).) On remand, the trial court issued an order to show cause and held an evidentiary hearing. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court found the prosecution had proven Albarran guilty of first-degree murder under current law. The court denied the petition for resentencing. Albarran filed a timely notice of appeal. Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) indicating counsel has not been able to identify any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks the court to independently review the record for error as required by Wende. We offered Albarran the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal. He has responded with a supplemental brief in which he simply cites the possible issues set forth in the opening brief. Albarran does not identify any other possible issues or point to any error by the trial court. In short, he does not raise any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. The facts of the offense are fully set forth in our opinion in the original appeal. We will not repeat the factual summary here. DISCUSSION As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a Wende brief and asks the court to review the record for error as required by Wende. To assist the court in its rereview, and in compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386