Court Opinion

ID: 9407401
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-06 20:05:17.76768+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:37.553243
License: Public Domain

Filed 7/6/23 P. v. Garcia 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                      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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,                                      E080582

 v.                                                                      (Super.Ct.No. 16CR027036)

 JOSE PEDRO GARCIA,                                                      OPINION

          Defendant and Appellant.

         APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Steve Malone,

Judge. Affirmed.

         Alex Kreit, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and

Appellant.

         No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

                                                             1
                                      INTRODUCTION

          Defendant and appellant Jose Pedro Garcia appeals from a postjudgment order

denying a petition for resentencing under Penal Code1 former section 1171/1171.1.2

Appointed appellate counsel filed an opening brief and asks this court to review the

record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende

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

affirm.

                              PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

          Defendant was charged by second amended information with second degree

robbery (§ 211, count 1) and attempted carjacking (§§ 664, 215 subd. (a), count 2). As to

both counts, the information alleged that he committed the crime for the benefit of a

criminal street gang. (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(C).) It also alleged that defendant had one

prior strike conviction (§§ 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d) & 667, subds. (b)-(i)) and one prior

serious felony conviction (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)), and that he had served two prior prison

terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)).

          On February 27, 2017, pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant pled no contest to

count 1 and admitted the gang enhancement. Pursuant to the agreement, the court

dismissed the remaining counts and allegations and sentenced defendant to the low term

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

          2
          Section 1171 was amended and renumbered 1172.7 (Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 11,
eff. June 30, 2022), and section 1171.1 was amended and renumbered 1172.75 (Stats.
2022, ch. 58, § 12, eff. June 30, 2022).
                                              2
of two years on count 1 and 10 years on the gang enhancement, for a total term of 12

years in state prison.

       On or about April 21, 2022, a resentencing petition pursuant to former sections

1171/1171.1 was “generated from a list sent to the [t]rial court” from the Department of

Corrections for those defendants “who they deem eligible for resentencing.”3 Because

the petition was “generated from” a list sent to the trial court, no actual petition was

submitted.4 The petition was placed on calendar.

       The court held a hearing on the resentencing petition on January 25, 2023. The

prosecutor initially argued that defendant was not eligible for resentencing since he

received the benefit of his bargain with his 12-year sentence. The court asked if it was a

question of whether defendant was eligible for resentencing, or a question of whether the

court should exercise its discretion to grant relief in the interest of justice. The prosecutor

then requested the court to find “that any striking or dismissal of the enhancement would

not be in the interest of justice.” Defense counsel asked the court to exercise its

discretion to strike the gang enhancement under section 1385. He also argued there was

an insufficient basis for the gang enhancement, under the current state of the law. The

       3 Penal Code section 1172.7 (former § 1171) concerns the invalidity of sentence
enhancements imposed under Health and Safety Code section 11370.2. Penal Code
section 1172.75 (former § 1171.1) concerns the invalidity of sentence enhancements
imposed under Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b). We observe that the court here
did not impose enhancements under either of these statutes.

       4 Accordingly, the clerk’s transcript does not contain a petition for resentencing
pursuant to sections 1171 and 1171.1 as part of the record.

                                              3
court asked whether defendant had appealed the case, and defendant responded, “No, sir.

[¶] . . . [¶] The prison system sent me a letter, saying that I’m eligible to be

resentenced.” The court stated its understanding that there was a codefendant in the

robbery and that during the commission of the robbery they both yelled, “Verdugo.” The

prosecutor confirmed. Defense counsel reiterated, “[W]e just ask the Court to exercise

any and all discretion, whether it be 1385 or any changes in the law, to strike the gang

enhancement or resentence him in any appropriate manner.”

       The court stated its understanding that even though there was a plea, it had the

discretion to review the circumstances and set aside the gang enhancement if it was in the

interest of justice. The court noted there had been a recent change in the law regarding

gang cases, and if the case were to go to trial currently, there would be “different factors

at play.” However, this was a plea case from 2017, and “the appeal avenues have been

exhausted.” The court observed that defendant had committed a serious offense

(robbery), and he had one prior strike and could have received 20 years if it had been

applied. However, the court’s biggest concern was that the gang enhancement was “tied

to the facts of the crime, specifically by yelling out the word ‘Verdugo’ during the

commission.” The court concluded it was not in the interest of justice to strike the gang

enhancement based on defendant’s prior record, and on the circumstances that the crime

was apparently gang-related and defendant “got 12 years instead of over 20.”

       Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal of the denial of his petition.

                                              4
                                        DISCUSSION

       After the notice of appeal was filed, this court appointed counsel to represent

defendant. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436

and Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738, setting forth a statement of the case, and identifying the

following potential arguable issue: whether the trial court erred in declining to dismiss

the gang enhancement in the interest of justice.

       Defendant was offered an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which

he has not done.5 Although he has not filed a supplemental brief, we exercise our

discretion to conduct an independent review of the record in the interest of justice. (See

Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 230 [“[I]f the appellate court wishes, it may also

exercise its discretion to conduct its own independent review of the record in the interest

of justice.”]; id at p. 232 [“[I]t is wholly within the court’s discretion [to] conduct [] its

own independent review of the record in any individual section 1172.6 appeal.”] id. at

p. 233, fn. 6 [“[T]he decision to conduct independent review is solely up to the discretion

of the Courts of Appeal”].)6

       5  The notice we sent defendant cited Wende after appointed counsel had filed a
brief pursuant to Wende. Defendant reasonably could have concluded from this notice
that the Wende procedures would apply and that we would conduct an independent
review of the record, even absent a supplemental brief. (See People v. Delgadillo (2022)
14 Cal.5th 216, 233 (Delgadillo).) The notice did not inform him that the appeal would
be dismissed as abandoned if no supplemental brief was filed. Since the notice did not
give him clear notice that we would dismiss the appeal as abandoned if no supplemental
brief was received, the notice “was suboptimal.” (Ibid.)

       6  Although this petition did not involve section 1172.6, we discern no reason not
to apply the same procedures to this appeal.
                                                5
     We have examined the entire record and found no arguable issues.

                                  DISPOSITION

     The judgment is affirmed.

     NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

                                                          FIELDS
                                                                        J.

We concur:

CODRINGTON
          Acting P. J.

RAPHAEL
                       J.

                                         6