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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 enhancem ents under Penal Code 1 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 review ed the

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

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

D efendant 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 th ree prior prison terms (§ 667 .5, subd. ( b )) and had

multiple prior strike conviction s (§§ 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 prison s and strike allegations. I n

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 anothe r 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, subdivisio n (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

D efendant filed a timely notice of appeal of the denial of the moti on to dismiss

.

DISCUSSION

Defend ant 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

t he record but may do so in its discretion. ( Delgadillo

, supra , 14 Cal.5 th 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 hi s nine

- page, handwritten brief is that this court dismiss the prior

prison allegations in the interest of justice

. Section 1172.75 invalidated a ny en hancement

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

except for enhancement s imposed for prior sexually violent offense conviction s

. (§

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 hi s 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. A s stated above,4

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

supplementa l] 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

.