Court Opinion

ID: 9841345
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-22 00:03:35.182252+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:48:59.073795
License: Public Domain

Filed 9/21/23 P. v. Landeros 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                      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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,                                      E081198

 v.                                                                      (Super.Ct.No. FSB1303116)

 ANDREW LORENZO LANDEROS,                                                OPINION

          Defendant and Appellant.

         APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Ronald M.

Christianson, Judge. (Retired Judge of the San Bernardino Super. Ct. assigned by the

Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Affirmed.

         Andrew Lorenzo Landeros, in pro. per.; and James M. Kehoe, under appointment

by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

         No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

                                                             1
       Andrew Lorenzo Landeros appeals the denial of his petition for resentencing

under newly renumbered section 1172.75. After his counsel filed a no-issue brief under

People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo), Landeros filed his own

supplemental brief. We affirm.

                                     BACKGROUND

       In September 2015 Landeros pled guilty to first degree residential robbery

(Pen. Code, § 211),1 first degree burglary (§ 459) and street terrorism. (§ 186.22,

subd. (a).) He also admitted to an enhancement alleging he personally used a firearm in

carrying out the robbery. (§ 12022.53, subd. (b).) The trial court imposed a total term of

18 years composed of six years for the robbery, 16 months for the burglary, eight months

for street terrorism, and 10 years for the firearm enhancement.

       In November 2022, Landeros filed a petition for resentencing under former

sections 1171 and 1171.1, alleging his sentence contained a one-year enhancement

imposed under section 667.5, subdivision (b). The trial court denied Landeros’s petition

in April 2023 after finding he was not eligible for resentencing under either statute.

Landeros filed his appeal—styled a “ ‘Motion.’ Reconsideration for Denial of ‘Petition

for Resentencing’ Pursuant to Senate Bill 483”—in May 2023.

       1 Unlabeled statutory citations refer to the Penal Code.

                                             2
                                        ANALYSIS

       On Landeros’s request, we appointed counsel to represent him on appeal. Counsel

filed a brief declaring they found no arguably meritorious issues to appeal, setting out a

statement of the case, and asking us to conduct an independent review of the record.

       When appealing from a postconviction order a defendant does not have a

constitutional right to independent review under Anders/Wende2 if appellate counsel

cannot identify any arguable issues. (Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 231.) However,

“[i]f the defendant subsequently files a supplemental brief or letter, the Court of Appeal

is required to evaluate the specific arguments presented in that brief and to issue a written

opinion.” (Id. at p. 232.) Here, after appellate counsel filed a brief notifying us

Landeros’s appeal presented no arguable issues, we offered Landeros an opportunity to

file a personal supplemental brief, and he has done so.

       Landeros argues that he is entitled to resentencing under Senate Bill No. 483. In

2022, Senate Bill No. 483 added section 1171.1 to the Penal Code, later re-numbered to

section 1172.75. This section says, “[a]ny sentence enhancement that was imposed prior

to January 1, 2020, pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 667.5, except for any

enhancement imposed for a prior conviction for a sexually violent offense . . . is legally

invalid.” (§ 1172.75, subd. (a).)

       2 Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders); People v. Wende (1979) 25
Cal.3d 436 (Wende).

                                              3
       Landeros’s sentence does not include any enhancements imposed under

section 667.5, subdivision (b). Therefore, he is not entitled to resentencing under

section 1172.75.3

                                      DISPOSITION

       We affirm the order denying Landeros’s petition.

       NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

                                                               RAPHAEL
                                                                                        J.
We concur:

McKINSTER
                Acting P. J.

MILLER
                          J.

       3 Landeros makes a number of additional arguments regarding his entitlement to
resentencing on the firearm use enhancement. Because he brought his petition under
section 1172.75, which does not apply to firearm use enhancements, we need not and do
not address these additional arguments.

                                             4