Court Opinion

ID: 9905098
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-28 19:03:24.43653+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:40.486816
License: Public Domain

Filed 11/28/23 P. v. Osorio 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                      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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,                                      E080302

 v.                                                                      (Super.Ct.No. FSB038791)

 RUBEN EMILIO OSORIO,                                                    OPINION

          Defendant and Appellant.

         APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Gregory S. Tavill,

Judge. Dismissed.

         Tonja R. Torres, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and

Appellant.

         No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

         On June 7, 2004, a jury found defendant and appellant Ruben Emilio Osorio guilty

of attempted willful, deliberate, premeditated attempted murder (Pen. Code,1 §§ 664,

         1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.
                                                                                        [footnote continued on next page]

                                                             1
187, count 1); carjacking (Pen. Code, § 215, subd. (a), count 2); possession of a firearm

by a felon (Pen. Code, § 12021, subd. (a)(1), count 3); unlawful driving or taking of a

vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a), count 4); and misdemeanor resisting a police

officer (Pen. Code, § 148, subd. (a)(1), count 5). The jury additionally found true

allegations that defendant personally discharged a firearm causing great bodily injury in

counts 1 and 2 (Pen. Code, § 12022.53, subds. (d), (e)(1)); personally discharged a

firearm in counts 1 and 2 (Pen. Code, § 12022.53, subd. (c)); personally used a firearm in

counts 1 and 2 (Pen. Code, § 12022.53, subds. (b), (e)); and carried a firearm in count 4

(Pen. Code, § 12022, subd. (a)(1)). The jury further found true gang enhancements for

serious and violent felonies in counts 1 and 2 (Pen. Code, § 186.22, subd. (b)(4)) and

gang enhancements on all four felony counts (Pen. Code, § 186.22, subd. (b)(1)). The

court sentenced defendant to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of 86 years to life.2

(Osorio I, supra, E036373; Osorio II, supra, E042066.)

       2 On our own motion, we take judicial notice of this court’s prior opinions from
defendant’s appeals from the original judgment (People v. Osorio (Dec. 19, 2005,
E036373) [nonpub. opn.] (Osorio I)), and from his resentencing upon remand by this
court (People v. Osorio (Nov. 28, 2007, E042066) [nonpub. opn.]) (Osorio II)). (Evid.
Code, § 459, subd. (a).) The People attached Osorio I to their opposition to defendant’s
petition and requested that the court take judicial notice of it. Both opinions are also
attached to the superior court’s statement in response to this court’s opinion in Osorio II,
which the court filed on February 15, 2023. After this court reversed and remanded the
matter twice for resentencing, the court resentenced defendant to an indeterminate term of
imprisonment of 69 years to life.

                                             2
       On April 21, 2022, defendant filed a form petition for resentencing pursuant to

former section 1170.95,3 which the court denied.

       After defense counsel filed a notice of appeal, this court appointed counsel to

represent him. On appeal, defendant’s appointed counsel has filed a brief pursuant to

People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo), setting forth a statement of the

case, requesting that we exercise our discretion to independently review the record for

error, and raising three potentially arguable issues: (1) whether the court engaged in

impermissible factfinding at the prima facie stage; (2) whether defense counsel below

provided prejudicial ineffective assistance of counsel by submitting on the matter without

filing a brief; and (3) whether the defendant was eligible for relief under section 1172.6.

       We gave defendant the opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief. We

noted that if he did not do so, we could dismiss the appeal; nevertheless, he has not filed

one. Under these circumstances, we have no obligation to independently review the

record for error. (Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at pp. 224-231.) Rather, we dismiss the

appeal. (Id. at pp. 231-232.)

       3 Effective June 30, 2022, Assembly Bill No. 200 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.)
amended and renumbered section 1170.95 as section 1172.6. (Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 10.)

                                             3
                                DISPOSITION

     The appeal is dismissed.

     NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

                                               McKINSTER
                                                           J.

We concur:

RAMIREZ
                     P. J.

CODRINGTON
                        J.

                                     4