People v. Krystal CA4/1

Filed 3/20/26 P. v. Krystal CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, D086153, D086444

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. SCN377993)

ALAN MICHAEL KRYSTAL,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEALS from judgments of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Daniel F. Link, Judge. Affirmed. Alan Michael Krystal, in pro. per.; and Richard Jay Moller, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. This appeal is from an order denying a petition to declare the appellant

to be factually innocent of the offense in this case under Penal Code1 section 851.8, subdivision (p).

1 Statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified.

In 2017, Alan Michael Krystal was arrested for one count of felony hit and run (Veh. Code, § 20001, subd. (a)). After a preliminary hearing in May 2018, the offense was reduced to a misdemeanor. In April 2019, the court granted Krystal’s motion for military diversion under section 1001.80. In September 2020, the court found Krystal had successfully completed diversion and dismissed the case. In November 2024, Krystal filed a petition to determine factual innocence under section 851.8. The court held a hearing in February 2025 and denied the petition. Krystal thereafter filed a motion for reconsideration and a renewed motion for a certificate of factual innocence. The various motions to strike and the renewed request for a certificate were all denied. Krystal filed two notices of appeal, which we have consolidated into a single appeal. Appellate counsel has filed a brief in accordance People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 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 mandated by Wende. We offered Krystal the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal. He responded with a 50-page brief in which he essentially seeks to retry the case and substitute his choice of inferences for those of the trial court. He argues counsel was ineffective for failing to present evidence and make arguments that he now seeks to offer. He further contends the magistrate’s decision to reduce the offense to a misdemeanor is proof the magistrate thought he was innocent. While Krystal is undoubtedly passionate about his case, he has not identified any arguable issue for reversal on appeal.