People v. Mendoza CA4/2 ( 2021 )

Filed 10/13/21 P. v. Mendoza 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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, E077331
v. (Super.Ct.No. RIF086461)
GABRIEL MENDOZA, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Charles J. Koosed, Judge.
Affirmed.
Gabriel Mendoza, in pro. per.; and Christine Vento, under appointment by the
Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
1
Defendant and appellant Gabriel Mendoza appeals the Riverside County Superior
Court’s denial of his petition for resentencing made pursuant to section 1170.95 of the
Penal Code.1 We affirm.
BACKGROUND
The events leading up to defendant’s petition for resentencing are taken from our
opinion issued in his appeal from the judgment. (People v. Mendoza (Dec. 28, 2001,
E028742) [nonpub. opn.].)
Defendant was convicted of attempted premeditated and deliberate murder
(§§ 664, 187) with related charges of discharging a firearm causing great bodily injury
and assault with a firearm during which he used a handgun (§§ 245, subd. (a)(2),
12022.5, subd. (a), 12022.53, subd. (d)). The court sentenced him to life in prison plus a
consecutive term of 25 years to life. He appealed and we affirmed the judgment.
DEFENDANT’S PETITION FOR RESENTENCING
In 2018, the Legislature enacted section 1170.95 (Stats. 2018, ch. 1015, § 4, eff.
Jan. 1, 2019), a provision that authorizes a person convicted of felony murder or murder
under a natural and probable consequences theory to file with the sentencing court a
petition to vacate the conviction and be resentenced.
Defendant filed a petition for resentencing on May 18, 2019. Defendant did not
appear but was represented by counsel on June 4, 2019, when the trial court denied the
1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
2
petition on the grounds section 1170.95 applies only to convictions of murder, not
attempted murder. Defendant appealed and we appointed counsel to represent him.
DISCUSSION
Defendant’s counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende
(1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S 738, which sets forth
statements of the case and facts, and requests this court to independently review the entire
record on appeal. Counsel also suggests one potential arguable issue: whether the trial
court erred when it dismissed defendant’s section 1170.95 petition for resentencing.
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which
he has done. In his handwritten letter submitted in response to our invitation, defendant
raises issues concerning his trial and sentencing, arguing that he was only 18 at the time
of his offense, he had no intent to kill the victim of the shooting, and he was denied a fair
and adequate defense due to ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel. The
time for seeking appellate review of those issues has long since passed. (Cal. Rules of
Court, rule 8.308(a) [an appeal must be brought within 60 days after rendition of the
judgment].)
Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have
conducted an independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.
3
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
RAMIREZ
P. J.
We concur:
MILLER
J.
FIELDS
J.
4