Filed 9/7/21 P. v. Quiroz CA2/7

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 specifie d 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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SEVEN

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Responde nt,

v.

BRENDA QUI ROZ

,
Defendant and Appellant. B 3 11331

(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. T A 1 48872

- 01 )

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of
Los Angeles County, Lynn D. Olson , Judge. Affirmed.
Richard B. Lennon

, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

________

_______2 Brenda Quiroz appeals from the judgment entered after s he pleaded no contest and was found guilty of o ne count of
attempte d murder and one count of aggravated assault and admitted with respect to the charge of attempted murder that she had personally used a firearm and inflicted great bodily injury on the victim

. No arguable issues have been identified fo llowing
review of th e record by Quiroz ’s appointed appellate counsel or our own independent review. We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Quiroz was charged in an amended felony complaint filed July 18, 2019 with two counts of attempted willful, deliberate and

preme ditated murder (Pen. Code, §§ 187, subd. (a), 664) , shooting at an occupied vehicle (Pen. Code, § 246) and conspiracy to commit a felony (murder) (Pen. Code, § 182, subd. (a)(1)) , with special allegations she had personally used a handg un when committing a ll four offenses (Pen. Code, § 12022.53, subd. (b)) , all
the offenses had been committed for the benefit of a criminal
street gang (Pen. Code, § 186.22, subd. (b)) and she had inflicted great bodily injury on one of the attempted murder victims (Pen. Code, § 12022.7, subd. (a))

. Quiroz entered into a negotiated plea agreement prior to her preliminary hearing. According to the description of the crime in the probation report, Quiroz had an argument with
Julio R. several days before the s hooting after Quiroz had flirted with Julio R.’s girlfriend, Maria P. On March 27, 2019 at approximately 1:00 a.m., as Julio R. parked his car in front of his house with Maria P. in the front passenger seat, Quiroz got out of
a red truck and fired four or five rounds in thei r direction.
Julio R. was struck in the right arm.3 Following her arrest Quiroz told police officers she was a member of the South Los 13 criminal street gang. Quiroz said
she did not want to shoot Julio R. following their argument but
members of he r gang insisted that she do so or she would be disciplined. The driver of the red truck had given Quiroz a
loaded firearm and instructed her to shoot at Julio R.’s vehicle. Quiroz claimed she had only fired in the air, not directly at e ither
Julio R. or Ma ria P. On the People’s motion the court ordered the complaint amended by interlineation to add a count of assault by means of force likely to cause great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 245,
subd. (a)(4))

. Pursuant to a negotiated agreemen t, Quiroz pleaded no contest to one count of attempted murder, one count of aggravated assault and admitted the firearm

- use and great bodily injury enhancement allegations. As part of her plea agreement, Quiroz waived her right to appeal the disposition o f her case, “based o n either the state of facts or law.” The court sentenced Quiroz to an aggregate state prison term of 20 years. Quiroz filed a timely notice of appeal.

DISCUSSION We appointed counsel to represent Quiroz on appeal. After reviewing t h e record, counsel f iled a brief raising no issues. On
Ju ly 13, 2021 counsel wrote Quiroz and advised h er that counsel
intended to file a no

- issue brief and that Quiroz personally could
submit h er own supplemental letter brief in which s he identified

any contentions or issue s s he wished us to consider. We have
received no r esponse. We have reviewed the entire record in this case and are satisfied appellate counsel for Quiroz has complied with counsel’s responsibilities and there are no arguable issues. ( Smith v.4

Robbins (20 00) 528 U.S. 259, 277

- 284; People v. Kelly (2006)

40 Cal.4th 106, 118

- 119; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436,

441

- 442.)
DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

PERLUSS, P. J.
W e concur:

SEGAL, J.

FEUER, J.