Filed 12/21/22 P. v. Santana CA4/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

SERAFIN SANTANA,

Defendant and Appellant.

 D080845

 (Super. Ct. No. RIF139207)

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Riverside County, 

Walter H. Kubelun, Judge. Affirmed. 

Serafin Santana, in pro. per.; and Siri Shetty, under appointment by 

the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

In 2009, a jury convicted Serafin Santana of attempted mayhem (Pen. 

Code,1 §§ 203 & 664) and assault with a firearm (§ 245, subd. (a)(2)) and 

found true allegations of intentional use of a firearm causing great bodily 

injury (§ 12022.53, subd. (d)) and personal use of a firearm (§ 12022.5, 

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
2

subd. (a)). The jury also found true an allegation that Santana personally 

inflicted great bodily injury on the victim (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)). 

The court sentenced Santana to an indeterminate term of 29 years four 

months to life in prison. 

Santana appealed and this court affirmed the judgment in an 

unpublished opinion. (People v. Santana (Sept. 11, 2013, D059013).)2

In 2022, Santana filed a petition for resentencing under section 1172.6. 

The superior court summarily denied the petition because Santana had not 

been convicted of any crimes that qualify for relief under the statute. 

Santana filed a timely notice of appeal. 

Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 

25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) indicating counsel has not been able to identify any 

arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks the court to review the 

record for error as mandated by Wende. We offered Santana the opportunity 

to file his own brief on appeal. He has responded with a lengthy document 

challenging his original conviction. He contends the superior court did not 

have jurisdiction to conduct the trial. Santana does not address the 

undisputed fact he has not been convicted of any offense that is eligible for 

relief under section 1172.6. He has not raised any arguable issues for 

reversal on appeal.

DISCUSSION3

As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a Wende brief and asks 

the court to review the record for error. To assist the court and in compliance 

with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), counsel has identified 

a possible issue that was considered in evaluating the potential merits of this 

2 We grant defense counsel’s request to take judicial notice of our records 

in case No. D059013.
3

appeal: Whether the trial court erred by denying the petition for 

resentencing under section 1172.6.

We have reviewed the record for error as required by Wende and 

Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. 

Competent counsel has represented Santana on this appeal.

DISPOSITION

The order denying Santana’s petition for resentencing under 

section 1172.6 is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

O’ROURKE, J.

IRION, J.

3 The facts of the offenses are addressed in our prior opinion. We will not 

repeat them here.