People v. Martinez CA2/4

Filed 12/29/25 P. v. Martinez CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, B340660 (Los Angeles County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. MA047485)

v.

MARCO ANTONIO MARTINEZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a postconviction order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Lisa Strassner. Dismissed. Andrea S. Bitar, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Defendant Marco Antonio Martinez appeals from a trial court order denying his freestanding motion for postconviction discovery under the Racial Justice Act (Pen. Code, § 745)1 and section 1054.9, as well as a subsequent habeas petition seeking the same discovery. Appointed appellate counsel filed a brief raising no issues and requesting that we proceed under People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo). Defendant has filed a supplemental brief. As recognized in the Delgadillo and supplemental briefs, defendant does not presently have the right to appeal. We thus dismiss the appeal.

BACKGROUND In 2010, defendant was convicted of three counts of oral copulation and/or sexual penetration of a child under the age of 10 (§ 288.7, subd. (b); counts 1–3) and two counts of sexual penetration of a child under the age of 14 by foreign object (§ 289, subd. (j); counts 4–5). Defendant was sentenced to 45 years to life (counts 1–3) plus a concurrent 16-year term (counts 4–5). In January 2023, defendant filed a motion to obtain discovery materials “in anticipation of filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus” (capitalization omitted) under section 1054.9. The trial court appointed counsel who subsequently requested to take the discovery motion off calendar. The court granted the request. In June 2024, defendant filed a pro. per. motion seeking an in-camera hearing under People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 (Marsden), arguing appointed counsel was ineffective for taking