Court Opinion

ID: 9366719
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-27 19:02:27.488019+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:54.643033
License: Public Domain

Filed 1/26/23 P. v. Zamora CA4/3

                      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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

 THE PEOPLE,
                                                                         G061537
      Plaintiff and Respondent,
                                                                         (Super. Ct. No. 16CF1903)
           v.
                                                                         OPI NION
 ISRAEL GUTIERREZ ZAMORA,

      Defendant and Appellant.

                   Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Michael
A. Leversen, Judge. Affirmed.
                   Richard Jay Moller, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for
Defendant and Appellant.
                   No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
                                                      *      *      *
              This is the third time Israel Gutierrez Zamora’s case has come before us.
              In a first amended information filed on March 20, 2017, Zamora was
                                                                           1
charged with nine felonies: count 1: attempted kidnapping (Penal code, §§ 664,
subd. (a), 207, subd. (a)); count 2: assault with a semiautomatic firearm (§ 245, subd.
(b)); count 3: assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)); count 4: attempted
murder (§§ 664, subd. (a), 187, subd. (a)); count 5: kidnapping (§ 207, subd. (a)); count
6: assault with a firearm (§ 245, subd. (a)(2)); count 7: shooting at an occupied vehicle
(§ 246); count 8: criminal threats (§ 422(a)); and count 9: dissuading a witness by force
or threat (§ 136.1, subd. (c)(1)).
              In addition, the information alleged that, as to count 1, Zamora personally
used a firearm (§ 12022.53, subd. (b)); as to counts 4 and 5, he personally discharged a
firearm (§ 12022.53, subd. (c)); and as to counts 2, 6, 7, and 8, he personally used a
firearm (§ 12022.5, subd. (a)). The information also alleged Zamora had suffered prior
felony convictions.
              In 2017, a jury convicted Zamora of all charges except count 3. The jury
also rejected the firearm allegation related to count 5. The trial court sentenced Zamora
to 98 years to life in prison. In an unpublished opinion in 2019 (People v. Zamora
(Dec. 20, 2019, G055827) [nonpub. opn.] (Zamora 1)), we affirmed the convictions but
remanded the case for resentencing.
              The trial court thereafter resentenced Zamora; he again appealed. In 2022,
this time in a published opinion, we affirmed the trial court’s decision related to the
release of juror identifying information, and again remanded the matter for resentencing
(People v. Zamora (2022) 73 Cal.App.5th 1084) (Zamora 2)). On June 21, 2022, the
parties submitted a stipulation to the trial court in which they agreed Zamora’s sentence

         1
              All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise
noted.

                                              2
of 98 years to life should be vacated, and he should instead be sentenced to no more than
64 years and 6 months to life. The court accepted the stipulation. At a new sentencing
hearing, conducted the same day, the trial court sentenced Zamora to the maximum
permitted pursuant to the stipulation—64 years and 6 months to life.
              Zamora now appeals from that sentence.
              We once again appointed counsel to represent Zamora on appeal. After
conducting his analysis of potential appellate issues, appointed counsel informed us in his
declaration that he had reviewed the entire record, and consulted with Zamora’s trial
counsel and a staff attorney at Appellate Defenders, Inc. Counsel then filed a brief
pursuant to the procedures set forth in People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders
v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, suggesting he found no viable appellate issue. While
not arguing against his client, counsel set forth the facts of the case and asked this court
to conduct its own independent review of the appellate record. Counsel also advised
Zamora of his right to file a written argument on his own behalf; he has not done so.
Although defendant has not filed a supplemental brief, we exercise our discretion to
conduct an independent review of the record. (People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th
216, 232.)

                                          FACTS
              Because this appeal does not relate directly to Zamora’s convictions, we
need only incorporate a brief summary of the underlying facts taken from Zamora 1.
              “Zamora’s charges were based on three separate incidents involving the
same victim, J. Hernandez. In the first incident, Zamora and Hernandez were drinking
together and got into a fist fight. During the fight, Zamora threatened Hernandez with a
gun and unsuccessfully attempted to force Hernandez into his car; Hernandez escaped.
              “The second incident occurred a few months later, when Hernandez was
driving and Zamora walked into the street and began shooting at him, with several bullets

                                              3
hitting Hernandez’s car. Hernandez crashed and took off running but Zamora followed
him and told him to get into his car. Hernandez agreed, and the two of them spent the
rest of the day together. Later that evening, Zamora threatened to kill Hernandez.
              “The third incident occurred a few weeks later when Zamora went to
Hernandez’s house and threatened to hurt Hernandez or his family if Hernandez talked to
the police.” (Zamora 1, supra, G055827).

                                      DISCUSSION
              Although appellate counsel “urges no specific contentions as grounds for
relief,” he suggests in his brief that we consider one issue: “Did the court abuse its
discretion by declining to strike any of the firearm enhancements without explanation?”
              We have considered this issue and find it to be without merit. We find
nothing in the record to suggest the trial judge misunderstood the standards that applied
to Zamora’s resentencing, or that he misapplied any applicable rule. As a result of his
familiarity with Zamora, his criminal history, and the facts of this case, the judge
apparently decided to give Zamora the full benefit of the stipulation entered into by the
parties, but nothing more. There is nothing in the record before us to suggest this
decision involved any abuse of discretion.
              We have likewise examined the entire record in this case and, like counsel,
found no other arguable issue on appeal.

                                             4
                                DISPOSITION
          The judgment is affirmed.

                                          GOETHALS, J.

WE CONCUR:

BEDSWORTH, P. J.

MOTOIKE, J.

                                      5