People v. Martinez CA5

Filed 8/23/24 P. v. Martinez CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, F086840 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. VCF340271) v.

DANIEL MARTINEZ, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tulare County. Melinda Myrle Reed, Judge. Joshua G. Wilson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, Defendant and Appellant. Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Smith, Acting P. J., Meehan, J. and Snauffer, J.

INTRODUCTION On March 20, 2019, appellant Daniel Martinez plead guilty to one count of premeditated attempted murder (Pen. Code,1 § 664/187, subd. (a)) and assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)). In addition, Martinez admitted that he had inflicted great bodily injury upon the victim in the commission of both crimes (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)), and that he had personally used a deadly weapon in the commission of the attempted murder (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1)). He was sentenced to a prison term of seven years to life. On March 27, 2023, Martinez filed a petition for resentencing seeking to vacate his conviction for premeditated attempted murder. The trial court appointed counsel to represent Martinez and set a briefing schedule on Martinez’s petition. The district attorney’s office filed a motion in opposition of Martinez’s petition, but Martinez’s appointed counsel did not. On July 25, 2023, the trial court denied Martinez’s petition, finding that he had failed to state a prima face case for resentencing relief. Appellate counsel for Martinez filed an opening brief summarizing the pertinent facts and raising no issues but asking this court to review the record independently. (See People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) The opening brief includes a declaration by appellate counsel stating that Martinez was advised of his right to file a brief of his own with this court. By letter dated May 10, 2024, we also invited Martinez to submit additional briefing. To date, we have not received a response from him. Pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, we have reviewed the entire record. Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to Martinez, we affirm.