Court Opinion

ID: 9782667
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 19:04:28.827062+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:27:57.456921
License: Public Domain

Filed 8/30/23 P. v. Trujillo 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                      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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,                                      E081265

 v.                                                                      (Super.Ct.No. FRE007327)

 RAMIRO TRUJILLO,                                                        OPINION

          Defendant and Appellant.

         APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. David Cohn, Judge.

Dismissed.

         Richard L. Fitzer, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and

Appellant.

         No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

         On October 11, 2007, a jury convicted defendant and appellant, Ramiro Trujillo,

of attempted murder (Pen. Code, §§ 664, 187, count 1).1 The jury additionally found true

         1 All further statutory references will be to the Penal Code.

                                                             1
an allegation that defendant had personally and intentionally discharged a firearm in his

commission of the attempted murder. (§ 12022.53, subd. (c).)2 The court sentenced

defendant to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of 27 years to life. (Trujillo, supra,

E044417.)

       On June 10, 2022, defendant filed a form petition for resentencing pursuant to

former section 1170.95.3 After a hearing on May 5, 2023, at which defendant was

represented by counsel, the trial court denied the petition.

       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 identifying one potentially arguable issue: whether the court erred in denying

defendant’s petition.

       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.)

       2 We take judicial notice of our prior opinion from defendant’s appeal from the
original judgment (People v. Trujillo (July 31, 2008, E044417) [nonpub. opn.] (Trujillo)),
which the People attached to their response to defendant’s petition and of which they
requested the court below take judicial notice.

       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.)

                                              2
                                DISPOSITION

     The appeal is dismissed.

     NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

                                               McKINSTER
                                                           Acting P. J.

We concur:

MILLER
                       J.

CODRINGTON
                       J.

                                     3