Full Opinion

Filed 10/30/26 P. v. Giles CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO THE PEOPLE, B355781 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. v. TA036909) DELONNE TYRICE GILES, Defendant and Appellant. THE COURT: Delonne Giles appeals the denial of his petition for recall and resentencing under Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (d)(1).1 His appellate counsel filed a brief under People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo) identifying no issues, and appellant filed a supplemental letter brief. The trial court’s order is affirmed. 1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. In 1997, Giles was convicted by jury of first degree murder and four counts of attempted murder. (§§ 187, 189.) He was sentenced to 26 years to life for the murder and four concurrent life terms for the attempted murders. On September 19, 2025, appellant filed a petition for recall and resentencing under section 1170, subdivision (d)(1) and People v. Heard (2022) 83 Cal.App.5th 608. After full briefing and a hearing, the trial court denied appellant’s petition because appellant did not receive a de facto sentence of life without the possibility of parole, and in fact “has [already] had some parole suitability hearings.” In his supplemental brief, appellant urges this court to remand the case for “Accelerated Discovery” regarding a Franklin hearing.2 His request is outside the scope of this appeal, which is from the denial of his resentencing petition. Appellant next argues that he “is entitled to parole release consideration . . . and to a hearing and to the benefit of youth offender release . . . .” Appellant has already been considered for parole, and according to the trial court’s order dated May 13, 2026, “has a parole hearing scheduled for November 2026.” Finally, appellant argues that his sentence amounts to cruel and unusual punishment. This claim is also outside the scope of this appeal. 2 People v. Franklin (2016) 63 Cal.4th 261. 2 DISPOSITION The trial court’s order is affirmed. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED. LUI, P. J. CHAVEZ, J. GOORVITCH, J. 3