Filed 12/4/19 P. v. Garcia 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

PHIL CARDWELL GARCIA,

Defendant and Appellant.

D076019

(Super. Ct. No. SWF011785)

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Riverside County, John Molloy, Judge. Affirmed.

Ronda G. Norris, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

In 2010, a jury convicted Phil Cardwell Garcia of first degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a)). The jury found true an allegation that the murder was committed for financial gain (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(1)). Garcia was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole.

In July 2012, this court affirmed Garcia’s conviction and sentence in an unpublished opinion (People v. Garcia et al. (July 6, 2012, D059197) [nonpub. opn.]).

In May 2019, Garcia filed a petition pursuant to section 1170.95 for resentencing of his murder conviction.

The trial court appointed counsel and conducted a brief, nonevidentiary hearing. After reviewing the conviction and the special circumstance of financial gain, which requires the intent to kill, the court summarily denied Garcia’s petition.

Garcia filed a timely notice of appeal.

Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) indicating she has not been able to identify any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks this court to review the record for error as mandated by Wende. We offered Garcia the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The facts of the underlying offense are set forth in our previous opinion (case No. D059197). We will not repeat them here. Suffice to note Garcia and another man were convicted of first degree murder and Garcia was found to have committed the murder for financial gain, a special circumstance which requires proof of intention to kill. Garcia confessed to killing the victim.

DISCUSSION

As we have noted appellate counsel has filed a Wende brief and asks this court to review the record for error. To assist the court in its review of the record and in compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), counsel has identified possible issues that counsel considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: 1) whether Garcia’s petition made prima facie showing of merits such that the court should have ordered an order to show cause; and 2) whether the court erred in conducting a summary proceeding instead of conducting a full evidentiary hearing.

We have reviewed the entire record as required by Wende and Anders. We have not identified any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Garcia on this appeal.

DISPOSITION

The order denying the petition filed under section 1170.95 is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

O’ROURKE, J.

IRION, J.