Court Opinion

ID: 9948731
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-07 20:04:02.560942+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:48.446443
License: Public Domain

Filed 3/7/24 P. v. Gaeta CA2/1
   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

                         SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                        DIVISION ONE

 THE PEOPLE,                                                            B330235

           Plaintiff and Respondent,                                    (Los Angeles County
                                                                        Super. Ct. No. KA058056)
           v.

 BRYAN THOMAS GAETA,

           Defendant and Appellant.

     APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, Juan Carlos Dominguez, Judge. Affirmed.
     Richard L. Fitzer, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
     No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
                _______________________________
      In April 2003, a jury found Bryan Thomas Gaeta guilty of
burglary (Pen. Code,1 § 459) and found true the special allegation
that the victim was present inside the residence at the time of
Gaeta’s entry, rendering the offense a violent felony under section
667.5, subdivision (c). The trial court heard and denied Gaeta’s
motion to dismiss a prior strike conviction under People v.
Romero (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 and to sentence him as a second
strike offender pursuant to the “Three Strikes” law (§§ 667,
subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)). The court sentenced him to
35 years to life: 25 years to life for the third strike, plus 10 years
for two prior serious felony enhancements under section 667,
subdivision (a)(1) (five years each).
      On March 1, 2022, the California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) sent a letter to the
superior court, recommending the court recall Gaeta’s sentence
pursuant to former section 1170.03, subdivision (a)(1) (since
renumbered § 1172.1)2 and consider whether to exercise its
discretion to dismiss the section 667, subdivision (a)(1) prior
serious felony enhancements. The court did not have such
discretion in 2003 when Gaeta was originally sentenced in this
case.
      Defense counsel filed a memorandum in support of
resentencing, asking the trial court to dismiss the two prior

      1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

      2 Effective June 30, 2022, section 1170.03 was renumbered

section 1172.1, with no change in text. (People v. Braggs (2022)
85 Cal.App.5th 809, 818.) “Section 1172.1 continues to provide
that a trial court may recall and resentence a defendant at any
time upon the recommendation of the Secretary [of CDCR] or
other specific public official.” (Ibid.; § 1172.1, subd. (a)(1).)

                                  2
serious felony enhancements in accordance with CDCR’s
recommendation. Counsel also requested the court dismiss a
prior strike and impose a maximum second strike sentence of 12
years, resulting in Gaeta’s release from prison. Counsel asserted,
“Gaeta does not pose an unreasonable risk to public safety if
released,” considering his age (then 57 years old), his prison
record of reform and accomplishments, as well as his “solid
support network” and his “strong re-entry plan,” among other
factors.
        At a hearing on April 20, 2023, the deputy district attorney
informed the trial court that the prosecution joined in CDCR’s
recommendation that the court dismiss the two prior serious
felony enhancements, but opposed Gaeta’s additional request
that the court dismiss a prior strike and sentence him as a second
strike offender. The prosecutor referenced Gaeta’s criminal
history and his history of substance abuse.
        After hearing additional argument from defense counsel,
the trial court denied Gaeta’s motion to dismiss one of the prior
strikes, citing Gaeta’s criminal history and a March 11, 2019
prison rules violation which the court found indicated Gaeta was
“still involved in the criminal mindset.” According to defense
counsel, that rules violation arose from an incident where Gaeta
stood in front of his cell, blocking a guard’s view of his cellmate,
who was apparently using a controlled substance.
        The trial court struck the two section 667, subdivision (a)(1)
prior serious felony enhancements (reducing Gaeta’s original
sentence by 10 years), and resentenced Gaeta to 25 years to life.
On April 21, 2023, the court issued a new abstract of judgment.
        Gaeta filed a timely appeal, indicating in the notice of
appeal that he was challenging the trial court’s denial of his

                                  3
motion to dismiss a prior strike conviction. We appointed counsel
to represent Gaeta in this appeal. After examination of the
record, counsel filed an opening brief, raising no issues and
asking this court to review the record independently pursuant to
People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). On January 10,
2024, we sent a letter to Gaeta and his appointed counsel,
informing Gaeta that his counsel had filed a Wende brief,
advising Gaeta that within 30 days he could personally submit
any contentions or issues he wanted us to consider, and directing
counsel to send the record and opening brief to Gaeta
immediately. Gaeta has not filed a supplemental brief.
       The Wende procedures, including the court’s independent
review of the appellate record, do not apply to an appeal from the
denial of postconviction relief. (People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14
Cal.5th 216, 222 (Delgadillo).) Rather, “[w]hen appointed counsel
finds no arguable issues to be pursued on appeal: (1) counsel
should file a brief informing the court of that determination,
including a concise recitation of the facts bearing on the denial of
the petition; and (2) the court should send, with a copy of
counsel’s brief, notice to the defendant, informing the defendant
of the right to file a supplemental letter or brief and that if no
letter or brief is filed within 30 days, the court may dismiss the
matter.” (Id. at pp. 231-232, emphasis added.)
       Here, neither Gaeta’s appointed appellate counsel nor this
court informed Gaeta that the failure to file a supplemental brief
might be deemed an abandonment of his appeal and result in the
dismissal of the appeal. Instead, counsel’s opening brief and this
court’s letter to Gaeta both cited Wende. The same situation
presented itself in Delgadillo, an appeal from the denial of
postconviction relief under section 1172.6, and the Supreme

                                 4
Court concluded that the appellant “reasonably could have
concluded from this [letter] that the Wende procedures would
apply and that the Court of Appeal would conduct an
independent review of the record, even absent a supplemental
brief.” (Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 233.) Thus, although
Wende procedures are not required in an appeal from the denial
of postconviction relief, the Supreme Court in Delgadillo
nevertheless conducted an independent review of the appellate
record. (Ibid.) We, too, have conducted an independent review of
the record before us for the same reasons.
       We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that
Gaeta’s counsel has complied with his responsibilities and there
are no arguable issues to be briefed. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40
Cal.4th 106, 109-110; Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441.)
                           DISPOSITION
       The judgment is affirmed.
       NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

                                               CHANEY, J.

We concur:

             BENDIX, Acting P. J.

             WEINGART, J.

                                5