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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 T his opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

,

Defen dant and Appellant. D080845

(Super. Ct. No. RIF139207 )

APPEAL from a n 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 Appea l, 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 intention al 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unpublished opinion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 fil ed a petition for resentencing under section 1172.6.

The s uperior c ourt 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 s uperior c ourt did not

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

u ndisputed 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.

DISCUSSION 3

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

the c ourt 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.