1

Filed 3/23/23 P. v. Divincenzo CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

RYAN MATTHEW DIVINCENZO,

Defendant and Appellant. E079825

(Super.Ct.No. FVI18001143)

OPINION

APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Debra Harris,

Judge. Affirmed.

Laura Arnold, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and

Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.2

Defendant and appellant Ryan Matthew Divincenzo appeal s the San Bernardino

County Superior Court’s denial of his petition for resentencing made pursuant to section

1385 of t he Penal Code. 1 We affirm

.

BACKGROUND

In August 2019, defendant pled no contest to assault by means of force likely to

cause great bodily injury and admitted an infliction of great bodily injury enhancement

and a prior strike. (§§ 245, subd. (a), 1170. 12, subds. (a)

- (d), 12 022.7, subd. (a).) The

court sentenced him to a total term of nine years in state prison, consisting of a midterm

of three years for the assault

, doubled on account of the strike, and a consecutive upper

term of three years for the enhancement

.
In 2021, the Legislature amended section 1385 to add subdivision (c). (Sen. Bill

No. 81 (Stats 2021, ch. 721, § 1).) The subdivision, which applies to all sentencings

occurring after the provision’s effecti ve date of January 1, 2022, requires the trial court to

dismiss an enhancement if it makes a discretionary finding that dismissal would further

the interests of justice unless the dismissal would violate any initiative statute or would

endanger public safe ty. (§ 1385, subd. (c)(1), (2), (7).)

In June 2022, defendant moved for an order striking or staying the sentences

imposed for the strike and the enhancement pursuant to subdivision (c) of section 1385

.
Defendant was present with counsel at the hearing when the court denied the motion.

Defendant appealed.

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.3 DISCUSSION

Defendant’s appointed appellate counsel has filed an opening brief that sets forth

statements of the case and facts but does not present any issues for adjudication. Counsel

requests us to independently review the record on appeal pursuant to People v. Wende

(1979) 25 Cal.3d 436

. No potentially arguable issues are suggested in the brief

.
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which

he has not done. Alth ough we are not required to independently review the record for

potential errors in a postjudgment appeal, we exercised our discretion to do so in keeping

with our opinion in People v. Griffin ( 2022) 85 Cal.App.5th 329

. We found no arguable

issues.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed

.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

RAMIREZ P. J.

We concur:

CODRINGTON J.

SLOUGH J.