1

Filed 2/20/24 P. v. Soriano 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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.

RICHARD SORIANO,

Defendant and Appellant.

E082225

(Super.Ct.No. RIF1702753)

OPINION

APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. John D. Molloy, Judge. 

Affirmed.

Richard Soriano, in pro. per.; and Heather E. Shallenberger, under appointment by 

the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
2

Defendant and appellant Richard Soriano appeals from a postjudgment order 

denying his motion to dismiss sentencing enhancements under Penal Code1 section 

1172.75. His appellate counsel filed a brief under People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 

216 (Delgadillo), and defendant filed a supplemental brief. We have reviewed the 

contentions defendant raised in his supplemental brief and affirm the order.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Defendant was charged by felony complaint with two counts of unlawful 

possession of controlled substances in prison. (§ 4573.6, counts 1 & 2.) The complaint 

further alleged that he served three prior prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)) and had 

multiple prior strike convictions (§§ 667, subds. (c) & (e)(2)(A) & 1170.12, subd. (c)(2)). 

On July 18, 2018, defendant entered a plea agreement and pled guilty to count 1, in 

exchange for the dismissal of count 2 and the prior prisons and strike allegations. In 

accordance with the plea agreement, the court sentenced defendant to the midterm of 

three years but, since it ordered this sentence to run consecutively to the sentence 

imposed in another case, the term was reduced to one-third the midterm, or one year in 

state prison. The court dismissed the remaining count and allegations.

On or about July 14, 2023, defendant filed an in propria persona motion to dismiss 

the section 667.5, subdivision (b) enhancements, pursuant to section 1172.75 (motion to 

dismiss). On July 26, the court held an ex parte hearing and summarily dismissed the 

motion. 

1

 All further statutory references will be to the Penal Code, unless otherwise 

noted.
3

Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal of the denial of the motion to dismiss. 

DISCUSSION

Defendant was provided notice under Delgadillo and advised that counsel filed a 

brief stating no arguable issues could be found, and that because this is an appeal from a 

postconviction proceeding, this court is not required to conduct an independent review of 

the record but may do so in its discretion. (Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 232.) The 

notice advised him that he could file a supplemental brief within 30 days. Defendant 

filed a supplemental brief. Where a defendant has filed a supplemental brief, a court of 

appeal need only evaluate the specific arguments presented in the brief. (Ibid.) “The 

filing of a supplemental brief or letter does not compel an independent review of the 

entire record to identify unraised issues.” (Ibid.)

Defendant alleges that prior prison convictions were used to enhance his sentence. 

The main request of his nine-page, handwritten brief is that this court dismiss the prior 

prison allegations in the interest of justice. Section 1172.75 invalidated any enhancement

pursuant to section 667.5, subdivision (b) that was imposed prior to January 1, 2020,

except for enhancements imposed for prior sexually violent offense convictions. (§

1172.75, subd. (a).) The record here unequivocally shows that the court dismissed

defendant’s prior prison enhancement allegations, in accordance with the terms of the

plea agreement. Accordingly, the court properly denied his motion to dismiss

enhancements under section 1172.75.

The rest of defendant’s brief raises unintelligible, nonsubstantive claims, and he

appears to request that we conduct an independent review of the record. As stated above,
4

Delgadillo only requires that we “evaluate the specific arguments presented in [the

supplemental] brief.” (Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 232.)

DISPOSITION

The trial court’s order denying the motion to dismiss is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

FIELDS

J.

We concur:

McKINSTER

Acting P.J.

MILLER

J.