Filed 3/26/15 P. v. Sanchez CA4/3 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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. 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

DIVISION THREE 

THE PEOPLE, 

 Plaintiff and Respondent, 

 v. 

ARTHUR JOSEPH SANCHEZ, 

 Defendant and Appellant. 

 G050561 

 (Super. Ct. No. 96SF0819) 

 O P I N I O N 

 Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Richard 

M. King, Judge. Affirmed. 

 John E. Edwards, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant 

and Appellant. 

 No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. 
2

 We appointed counsel to represent Arthur Joseph Sanchez on appeal. 

Counsel filed a brief that set forth the facts of the case. Counsel did not argue against his 

client but advised the court he found no issues to argue on his client’s behalf. We gave 

Sanchez 30 days to file written argument on his own behalf. That time has passed, and 

he did not file a brief. 

 Counsel filed a brief following the procedures outlined in People v. Wende

(1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). The Wende court explained a Wende brief is one that sets 

forth a summary of the proceedings and the facts but raises no specific issues. Under 

these circumstances, the court must conduct an independent review of the entire record. 

When the appellant himself raises specific issues in a Wende proceeding, we must 

expressly address them in our opinion and explain why they fail. (People v. Kelly (2006) 

40 Cal.4th 106, 124.) Here, Sanchez did not file a supplemental brief raising any issues. 

 Sanchez appeals from the trial court’s denial of his petition for resentencing 

under Penal Code section 1170.126 (all further statutory references are to the Penal 

Code). Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, to assist this court with our 

independent review, counsel provided the court with information as to the following three 

issues that might arguably support an appeal: (1) “[w]hether the disqualifying factor for 

resentencing under section 1170.126 of being armed with a firearm be proven to a jury 

beyond a reasonable doubt in the context of the underlying offense . . .”; (2) “[w]hether 

an inmate who is serving time for a conviction for possession of a firearm, not being 

armed with a firearm, is disqualified from resentencing under section 1170.126 . . .”; and 

(3) “[w]hether being armed with a firearm during the commission of the offense upon 

which the appellant is seeking resentencing requires some facilitative nexus to an 

underlying felony unrelated to possession of the firearm . . . .” 

 We have reviewed the record in accordance with our obligations under 

Wende and Anders, and considered the information provided by counsel. We found no 

arguable issues on appeal. The judgment is affirmed. 
3

FACTS 

 An information alleged Sanchez, “in violation of [s]ection 12021[, 

subdivision] (a)(1) of the Penal Code, (POSSESSION OF FIREARM BY A FELON), a 

FELONY, did willfully and unlawfully own and have in his/her possession and under 

his/her custody and control a firearm, to wit[:] .38 cal revolver gun, after having 

previously been convicted of a felony.” In July 1997, a jury found Sanchez guilty of that 

count. The weapon was loaded and located in Sanchez’s waistband during a vehicle stop. 

The trial court found Sanchez had suffered convictions for two prior serious or violent 

felonies, two separate section 211 robbery convictions. The trial court sentenced Sanchez 

as a “Three-Strike” offender to an indeterminate sentence of 25 years to life in prison. 

 In March 2013, Sanchez filed a petition for recall of sentence and 

resentencing under section 1170.126. The prosecution filed a motion to dismiss the 

petition on the ground Sanchez was not eligible for resentencing because he was armed 

with a loaded weapon during the commission of his third strike offense. Sanchez filed 

opposition to the motion to dismiss, arguing section 1170.126, subdivision (e)(2), 

requires the prosecution to both plead and prove petitioner used a firearm or was armed 

with a deadly weapon; section 12021 does not exclude petitioner from resentencing under 

section 1170.126, subdivision (b)(2); and Sanchez falls within the intent of section 

1170.126, subdivision (c). 

 In August 2014,

1

 the trial court heard Sanchez’s petition for resentencing. 

Citing People v. Osuna (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 1020, the court held Sanchez was 

ineligible for resentencing under section 1170.126 because “‘during the commission of 

the current offense, [Sanchez] used a firearm, was armed with a firearm or deadly 

weapon, or intended to cause great bodily injury to another person.’” The court stated the 

 

1

 No explanation for the delay between the filing of the petition and the 

hearing is provided in the record. 
4

statute disqualifies those who were armed during the commission of an offense from 

recall and resentencing. Given the fact the officer arresting Sanchez located a loaded 

.38 caliber revolver in his waistband, the court found Sanchez was ineligible for 

resentencing. The court rejected the argument there had to be a separate finding in the 

underlying case that Sanchez was armed. Rather, the court found that under the statute, it 

was sufficient there were facts in the record of conviction demonstrating Sanchez was 

armed. On that basis, the court denied Sanchez’s petition for recall. 

DISCUSSION 

 A review of the record pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, and 

Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738, including the possible issues raised by appellate counsel, 

has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issue. 

DISPOSITION 

 The judgment is affirmed. 

 

 O’LEARY, P. J. 

WE CONCUR: 

BEDSWORTH, J. 

ARONSON, J.