Jump To

Top Caption Combined Opinion

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 16, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

People v. Medina CA2/1

California Court of Appeal

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: B346613

• Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

• Opinion

• Authorities (2)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (0)

• PDF

Combined Opinion

Filed 3/16/26 P. v. Medina CA2/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

THE PEOPLE, B346613

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. TA051693)
v.

FRANCISCO JAVIER MEDINA,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, Teresa P. Magno, Judge. Affirmed.
Nancy Gaynor, under appointment by the Court of Appeal,
for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Defendant Francisco Javier Medina appeals following the
superior court’s summary denial of his Penal Code1 section
1172.6 petition for resentencing. Medina’s appointed appellate
counsel filed a brief identifying no issues on appeal and
requesting that we follow the procedures outlined in People v.
Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216. Medina filed a supplemental
brief which we address below. We affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY
In 2002, a jury found Medina guilty of, among other things,
first degree murder (§ 187, subd. (a)), premeditated and
deliberate attempted murder (§§ 187, subd. (a), 664), shooting at
an occupied dwelling (§ 246), and assault with a semiautomatic
firearm (§ 245, subd. (b)). The jury also found true special
allegations that included that Medina personally used a firearm
(§ 12022.5, subd. (a)(1)), personally and intentionally discharged
a firearm (§ 12022.53, subd. (c)), and personally and intentionally
discharged a firearm causing great bodily injury and death
(§ 12023.53, subd. (d)). The court ultimately sentenced Medina to
life imprisonment plus 70 years to life plus 26 years 8 months.
In 2024, Medina filed a petition for resentencing pursuant
to section 1172.6. The superior court appointed counsel to
represent Medina and received briefing as to whether Medina
had established a prima facie showing of entitlement to relief.
On May 23, 2025, the superior court denied the petition at the
prima facie stage because Medina’s jury was not instructed on
first degree felony murder, natural and probable consequences, or
aiding and abetting. The court further found based on the verdict

1 Unspecified statutory references are to the Penal Code.

2
form that the jury convicted Medina as the actual shooter.
Medina’s counsel was present at the May 23, 2025 hearing;
Medina was not.
Medina timely appealed, and we appointed counsel to
represent him. Medina’s appellate counsel found no arguable
issues to raise on appeal. Counsel informed Medina of her
intention to file a brief pursuant to Delgadillo and of Medina’s
right to file a supplemental brief, and provided him with a copy of
the appellate record and her Delgadillo brief. Medina thereafter
filed a supplemental brief, which we have read and considered.
DISCUSSION
When appointed counsel files a brief in an appeal from the
denial of postconviction relief that identifies no appellate issues
and the defendant files a supplemental brief, we are “required to
evaluate the specific arguments presented in [the defendant’s
supplemental] brief.” (People v Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at
p. 232.) We are not, however, required to conduct an independent
review of the record to identify arguable issues. (Ibid.) Although
we have discretion to conduct an independent review, we decline
to do so in this case.
In his supplemental brief, Medina asserts two claims of
error regarding the superior court’s denial of his section 1172.6
petition. He asserts (1) there was no valid waiver of his right to
be present at the May 23, 2025 hearing where the court denied
his petition, and (2) the instructions given at his trial permitted
to the jury to impute malice to him.
Medina had no right to be personally present at the
May 23, 2025 hearing as it concerned the legal question of
whether he had established a prima facie case for relief. (People
v. Basler (2022) 80 Cal.App.5th 46, 58-59 [a defendant’s right to

3
be present in a postconviction matter arises after the defendant
has passed the initial eligibility stage]; People v. Fedalizo (2016)
246 Cal.App.4th 98, 109 [“it is well established that a represented
defendant has no constitutional or statutory right to be present to
address purely legal questions”].) The lack of any waiver from
Medina of his presence at the hearing is not reversible error.
We also reject Medina’s conclusory assertion that the
instructions given to his jury permitted the imputation of malice
to him on the murder and/or attempted murder counts. The
record shows the trial court did not instruct Medina’s jury on first
degree felony murder, the natural and probable consequences
doctrine, or aiding and abetting. As to the murder count, the
court did instruct the jury on second degree felony murder. But
the jury did not convict Medina of second degree murder. It
found Medina guilty of first degree murder and therefore
necessarily found the murder was willful, deliberate, and
premeditated. With regard to attempted murder, the jury found
true a special allegation that Medina acted willfully, deliberately,
and with premeditation. In other words, the jury expressly found
that Medina committed both murder and attempted murder with
the deliberate intent to kill (§ 188, subd. (a)(1)), thus making him
ineligible for relief (see § 1172.6, subd. (a).)
Medina’s supplemental brief also asserts claims that
alleged instructional errors tainted his murder and attempted
murder convictions and that deficiencies existed in the proof
adduced at trial of his intent to kill. These assertions are not
cognizable in an appeal from the denial of a postconviction
section 1172.6 petition, and we therefore do not address them.
(People v. Farfan (2021) 71 Cal.App.5th 942, 947 [petition for
resentencing under postconviction ameliorative sentencing

4
statute “does not afford the petitioner a new opportunity to raise
claims of trial error”].)
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

WEINGART, J.

We concur:

ROTHSCHILD, P. J.

M. KIM, J.

5