People v. Garza CA4/1

Filed 12/12/22 P. v. Garza CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, D080570

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. FVA1301203)

JOSEPH GARZA,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Bernadino County, Katrina West, Judge. Affirmed. Robert V. Vallandigham, Jr., under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. In 2016, a jury convicted Joseph Garza of voluntary manslaughter as a

lesser included offense of the charge of murder (Pen. Code,1 § 192, subd. (a)) and found true an allegation that Garza personally and intentionally

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.

discharged a firearm causing death or great bodily injury (§ 12022.53, subd. (d)). The court sentenced Garza to a determinate term of 16 years in prison. Garza appealed and this court affirmed the judgment in an unpublished opinion. (People v. Garza (Sept. 11, 2018, D073723).) In 2022, Garza filed a petition for resentencing under former section 1170.95 (now renumbered 1172.6). The court appointed counsel for Garza, received briefing, reviewed the record of conviction, and held a hearing. The court found there were no jury instructions on felony murder or liability based on the doctrine of natural and probable consequences. The defense was imperfect self-defense and there was no doubt that Garza was the actual shooter. The court denied the petition. Garza filed a timely notice of appeal from the order denying his petition. 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 review the record for error as mandated by Wende. We offered Garza the opportunity to