People v. Soto-Enriquez CA3

Filed 8/26/24 P. v. Soto-Enriquez CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

THE PEOPLE, C100295

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 06F05369)

v.

MIGUEL SOTO-ENRIQUEZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Miguel Soto-Enriquez appeals from a postconviction order dismissing his petition for resentencing pursuant to Penal Code1 section 1170, subdivision (d). Appointed counsel for defendant asked this court to independently review the record pursuant to People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216, 231-232 (Delgadillo) to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. Defendant has filed a

1 Further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

supplemental brief arguing his attorney failed to inform him of the need to submit information concerning his remorse and asking for remand to allow the trial court to consider his letter of remorse filed with the trial court after the dismissal of his petition. We have considered defendant’s arguments and affirm the trial court’s dismissal without prejudice. (Id. at pp. 231-232.) FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In April 2008, a jury convicted defendant of committing first degree murder and attempted murder. The jury also found numerous enhancements true. In May 2008, the trial court sentenced him to an aggregate prison term of life without the possibility of parole plus 50 years to life plus 17 years. We upheld this judgment on appeal. (People v. Soto-Enriquez (July 8, 2009, C059155) [nonpub. opn.].) Defendant was resentenced on June 3, 2016, following a successful petition for writ of habeas corpus, to an aggregate term of 75 years to life plus 17 years. On September 21, 2022, defendant filed a petition for resentencing pursuant to section 1170. There is no indication in the record that he was appointed counsel in the trial court to represent him regarding the petition. On November 9, 2022, the trial court denied his petition because it found it lacked jurisdiction to hear it, and this court reversed for further proceedings in light of the People’s concession that defendant was eligible for resentencing under section 1170, subdivision (d). (People v. Soto-Enriquez (Sept. 15, 2023, C097478) [nonpub. opn.].) Defendant refiled his petition for resentencing pursuant to section 1170 on October 24, 2023. There is no indication in the record he was appointed counsel in the trial court to represent him regarding the petition. On December 28, 2023, the trial court issued a written order determining that while defendant met the age requirements and had originally been sentenced to life without the possibility of parole, defendant’s petition failed to include information