People v. Sandoval CA2/7

Filed 6/11/25 P. v. Sandoval CA2/7 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SEVEN

THE PEOPLE, B337501

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA130000) v.

GILBERT SANDOVAL,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Laura F. Priver, Judge. Affirmed in part, dismissed in part. Susan Morrow Maxwell, under appointment by the Court of Appeal; Gilbert Sandoval, in pro per., for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. __________________________

In 1997 a jury convicted Gilbert Sandoval of first degree murder; attempted willful, deliberate, and premeditated murder; and second degree robbery (two counts). The trial court sentenced Sandoval to, among other terms, life without the possibility of parole and life with the possibility of parole. In 2024 Sandoval filed a motion for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.1 or, in the alternative, for other relief.1 Among other things, Sandoval asked for a hearing under People v. Franklin (2016) 63 Cal.4th 261 (Franklin) to preserve youth- related mitigating evidence for a future youth offender parole hearing under section 3051. The trial court denied Sandoval’s motion under section 1172.1 and the request for a Franklin hearing, and Sandoval appealed. We appointed counsel to represent Sandoval. After reviewing the record, appellate counsel for Sandoval filed a brief that did not identify any arguable issues. After independently reviewing the record and the contentions Sandoval asserted in a three-page supplemental brief (which included 33 pages of exhibits), we have not identified any either. Therefore, we affirm.