Filed 1/4/23 P. v. Salazar CA2/4

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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(a). This opinion has not 

been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115(a).

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

LUIS SALAZAR,

Defendant and Appellant.

B318556

Los Angeles County

Super. Ct. No. BA373747

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los

Angeles County, Henry J. Hall, Judge. Dismissed.

Richard B. Lennon, under appointment by the Court of 

Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
2

In 2010, defendant and appellant Luis Salazar pled no 

contest to charges of robbery (Pen. Code, § 211) and possession of 

heroin. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350, subd. (a).) He also admitted 

he sustained prior strike and serious felony convictions for 

robbery. (Pen. Code, §§ 667, 1170.12.) The trial court struck all 

but one prior strike. It sentenced Salazar to state prison for 2

years on the robbery charge, doubled to 4 years because of the 

remaining strike, with a consecutive sentence of 8 months on the 

possession charge, doubled to 16 months. It enhanced this

sentence by 10 years for the prior serious felony convictions.

In 2015, Salazar’s possession charge was reduced to a

misdemeanor under Proposition 47 (Pen. Code, § 1170.18), and 

that sentence was converted to a one-year county jail

sentence. In 2019, the court denied his Proposition 47 petition to 

reduce his robbery to a theft conviction.

Following the 2018 passage of Senate Bill 1393 (2017-2018 

Reg. Sess.) which, for the first time, allowed trial courts to 

exercise discretion to strike enhancements for prior serious felony 

convictions, Salazar filed a petition for resentencing. The trial 

court summarily denied the petition, concluding Senate Bill No.

1393 was not retroactive and did not apply to Salazar’s case

because his judgment had become final. 

In 2021, Salazar sought recall, citing Proposition 47, 

Senate Bill No. 1393, and Assembly Bill No. 1618 (2019-2020 

Reg. Sess.), which, in the interest of public policy, voided plea 

bargain provisions that required defendants to generally waive 

future benefits of legislative enactments and other beneficial 

ameliorative changes in the law (see Pen. Code, § 1016.8). The 

trial court filed a written order denying Salazar’s motion. The 

court reiterated that Proposition 47 did not apply to robbery and 
3

Senate Bill No. 1393 did not apply to Salazar because his

judgment had already become final. With respect to Assembly 

Bill No. 1618, the court rejected Salazar’s argument that the new 

law vested the court with the authority to apply Senate Bill No. 

1393 retroactively to Salazar’s already final case. The court noted 

that it did not have jurisdiction to resentence Salazar. Salazar 

timely appealed. 

Appellate counsel filed a brief identifying no issues and 

requesting that this court follow the procedures set forth in 

People v. Serrano (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 496. The court notified 

Salazar he had 30 days to file a supplemental brief. Salazar did 

not file a supplemental brief. This court has no independent duty 

to review the record for reasonably arguable issues. (People v. 

Cole (2020) 52 Cal.App.5th 1023, 1039-1040, review granted, Oct. 

14, 2020, No. S264278.) We therefore dismiss Salazar’s appeal as 

abandoned. (Ibid.)
4

DISPOSITION

The appeal is dismissed. 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

CURREY, J. 

We concur: 

MANELLA, P.J. 

COLLINS, J.