People v. Carrillo CA2/3

Filed 4/16/26 P. v. Carrillo CA2/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE

THE PEOPLE, B341164 Plaintiff and Respondent, Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. v. XNVPA093382-02 FRANK CARRILLO, Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Hayden Zacky, Judge. Affirmed.

Richard L. Fitzer, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. _________________________ Frank Carrillo appeals from his judgment of conviction after he entered into a plea agreement with the People. Carrillo’s counsel has asked us independently to review the record under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). We affirm.

Carrillo takes his statement of facts from the probation department report. Accordingly, we do as well, along with the transcript of the preliminary hearing.

Early on the morning of August 8, 2019, Ramon Cortez left his home to go to work. He was on his skateboard. A silver or gray Prius passed him and pulled to the curb. A passenger —later identified as Jose Garcia—got out, jumped in front of Cortez, and began shooting at him. Cortez turned and ran, took a shot, and went down. Garcia ran up to Cortez and shot him point-blank in the head. Garcia ran back to the Prius and it sped off. Carrillo was driving the Prius.

Carrillo told his girlfriend at the time that he wanted to clean the Prius. He said “Active” had killed “Greedy.” “Active” was Garcia’s moniker. “Greedy” was Cortez’s moniker. They both were members of the Langdon Street gang. Carrillo was a member as well. He had admitted membership to an officer and had gang tattoos. He was known as “Suspect.” Cortez had fallen out of favor with his gang.

The People charged Garcia and Carrillo with Cortez’s murder. The People alleged two special circumstances: that the defendants committed the murder by means of lying in wait, and that they committed the murder while active participants in a criminal street gang. The People also alleged that Garcia personally used and discharged a firearm causing death to Cortez and—as to Carrillo—that a principal used and discharged a firearm causing death to Cortez.

On July 8, 2024, Carrillo entered into a plea agreement with the prosecution.1 The prosecution moved to amend the information to allege the murder as second degree. Carrillo pleaded no contest to the charge. Carrillo also pleaded no contest to firearms offenses in two other pending cases. In accordance with the plea agreement, the court sentenced Carrillo to 15 years to life in the state prison. The court also sentenced him to concurrent time on his two other cases.

Carrillo filed a notice of appeal and requested a certificate of probable cause. The court denied the request. Accordingly, on November 4, 2024, the Administrative Presiding Justice of this court issued an order limiting Carrillo’s appeal “to issues that do not require a Certificate of Probable Cause.”

We appointed counsel to represent Carrillo on appeal.

After “review[ing] the entire record on appeal,” counsel filed an opening brief requesting that this court “independently review the entire record on appeal for arguable issues” under Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436. Counsel declared he had “discussed the matter with a staff attorney at the California Appellate Project.”

Counsel stated he had written to Carrillo “explaining [his] evaluation of the record on appeal and [his] intention to file this pleading.” Counsel had sent Carrillo “the transcripts of the record on appeal and a copy of [his] brief.” Counsel informed Carrillo of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days.

This court sent a letter also advising Carrillo of his right to file a supplemental brief. We have not received a supplemental brief from Carrillo.

1 Garcia took a plea deal as well.

We have independently reviewed the record and find no arguable issues. We are satisfied that appellant’s counsel has fully complied with his responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 109–110; Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.)

We affirm Frank Carrillo’s judgment of conviction.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

EGERTON, J.

We concur:

EDMON, P. J.

HANASONO, J.