Court Opinion

ID: 9409552
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-18 17:04:18.54879+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:51.417426
License: Public Domain

Filed 7/18/23 P. v. Fontenot CA4/1
                 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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.

                COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                                 DIVISION ONE

                                         STATE OF CALIFORNIA

 THE PEOPLE,                                                          D081367

           Plaintiff and Respondent,

           v.                                                         (Super. Ct. No. FBA1100269)

 JOSE LUIS FONTENOT,

           Defendant and Appellant.

         APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Bernardino
County, Lisa M. Rogan, Judge. Affirmed.
         Jose Luis Fontenot, in pro. per.; and Patricia L. Brisbois, under
appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
         No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
         In 2017, a jury convicted Jose Luis Fontenot of one count of first degree
murder committed in 2011 and a second degree murder committed in 2009.

(Pen. Code,1 § 187, subd. (a).) The jury also found true a multiple murder
enhancement (§ 190, subd. (a)(3)), and related firearms enhancement

1        All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
(§ 12022.53, subds. (b), (c), and (d).) Fontenot was sentenced to life without
parole for count 1 plus 15 years to life for second degree murder and two
consecutive 25 year to life terms for the two firearm enhancements.
      In 2022, Fontenot filed a petition for resentencing under section 1172.6.
The court appointed counsel, reviewed the record of conviction, and held a
hearing. The trial court found the record demonstrated Fontenot was the
actual killer in both cases. Thus, the court found Fontenot was not eligible
for relief under the statute as a matter of law. The petition for resentencing
was denied without issuing an order to show cause.
      Fontenot filed a timely notice of appeal.
      Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Delgadillo
(2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo), indicating counsel has not been able to
identify any potentially meritorious issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel
asks the court to exercise its discretion and conduct an independent review of
the record for error consistent with People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436
(Wende). We notified Fontenot of his right to file his own brief on appeal. He
has responded with a rambling discussion of his various complaints about the
system and that he has not been treated fairly in his contacts with the
criminal justice system. He does not raise any potentially meritorious issues

for reversal on appeal.2
                                DISCUSSION
      As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to
Delgadillo and asks the court to conduct a Wende review of the record for
error. To assist the court in its review, and in compliance with Anders v.

2    The facts of the two murder convictions are discussed in our
unpublished opinion. (People v. Fontenot (Jan. 14, 2019, D074575).)
                                       2
California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), counsel has identified two possible
issues that were considered in evaluating the potential meris of this appeal:
      1. Did the trial court err in denying the petition for resentencing since
the prosecutor did not file a written response to the petition?
      2. Did the court err in denying the petition without citing to specific
sections of the record supporting that decision?
      We have independently reviewed the record consistent with the
requirements of Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any potentially
meritorious issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has
represented Fontenot on this appeal.
                                DISPOSITION
      The order denying Fontenot’s petition for resentencing under
section 1172.6 is affirmed.

                                                       HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

O’ROURKE, J.

RUBIN, J.

                                       3