Filed 12/12/22 P. v. Garza CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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 or dered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

JOSEPH GARZA

,

Defendant and Appellant. D080570

(Super. Ct. No. FVA1301203 )

APPEAL from a n 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 intentio nally

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.2

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unpublished opinion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, 201 8

, 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

hea ring. 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 de nied 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 i ssues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks the court to review the

record for error as mandated by Wende. We offered Garza the opportunity to

file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded. 2

DISCUSSION

As we have noted

, appellate counsel has fi led a Wende brief and asks

the court to review the record for error. To assist the court in its review, and

in compliance with Anders v

. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 ( Anders )

, counsel

has identified a possible issue that was considered in evaluating the potential

2 We discussed the facts of the offense in our prior opinion. ( People v.
Garza

, supra , D073723.) We will not repeat that discussion here.3

merits of this appeal : Whether there is evidence to support the court ’ s

posttrial order.

We have reviewed the entire record as required by Wende and Anders

. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal.

Competent counsel has represented Garza on this appeal.

DISPOSITION

The order denying Garza ’ s petition for resentencing under

section 1172.6 is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, J.

WE CONCUR:

McCONNELL, P. J.

O ’ ROURKE, J.