1

Fi l ed 12/11/23 P. v. Lopez CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Sutter)

----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

SALVADOR LOPEZ,

Defendant and Appellant. C098628

(Super. Ct. No. CRF080001476)

Defendant Salvador Lopez appeals the trial court’s denial of his petition for

resentencing under Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (d). 1 Appointed counsel for

defendant filed a brief raising no arguable issues under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d

436 and asking this court to conduct an independent review of the record to determine

whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. After independently examin ing the

record, we will affirm the judgment

.

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.2 I. BACKGROUND

The facts of the offenses are recounted in our prior opinion from defendant’s

direct appeal. (See People v. Lopez (Feb. 18, 2015, C060565 ) [nonpub. opn.].) As

relevant here, i n 2008, a jury found defendant guilty of premeditated attempted murder

(§§ 187, 664) and participation in a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (a)). As to the

attempted murder conviction, the jury found that defendant intentionally and personally

disch arged a firearm causing great bodily injury (§ 12022.53 , subd. (d) ) and that he

committed the offense for the benefit of a criminal gang (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(C)). As

to the participation in a street gang conviction , the jury found that defendant person ally

used a firearm (§ 12022.5, subd. (a)). After finding the information had not properly

alleged premeditated attempted murder, the trial court sentenced defendant to the upper

term of nine years for attempted murder and a consecutive 25 years to life f or the section

12022.53, subdivision (d) enhancement

. The court stayed punishment for the street gang

conviction and the section 12022.5, subdivision (a) enhancement. The court struck the

street gang enhancement in the interest of justice

. In 2023, def

endant filed a petition seeking relief under section 1170, subdivision

(d)(1) and People v. Heard (2022) 83 Cal.App.5th 608 . The trial court denied the

petition because defendant “was not sentenced to life without parole or the functional

equivalent ” and “ ha[d] not met the other statutory requirements for relief.” Defendant

filed a timely notice of appeal.

II. DISCUSSION

We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening

brief setting forth the facts of the case and requesting that this court review the record to

determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. ( People v. Wende, supra , 25

Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30

days of the date of fi ling of the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed, and we

received no communication from defendant. Defendant was not notified that his failure3

to file a supplemental brief may result in dismissal of the appeal. Accordingly, a lthough

we are not requi red to independently review the record in these circumstances (see, e.g.,

People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216, 226), in the interest of justice, we have done

so

. We find no arguable errors that are favorable to defendant.

III. DISPOSITION

The ju dgment is affirmed.

/S/

RENNER, J.

We concur:

/S/

MAURO, Acting P. J.

/S/

MESIWALA, J.