People v. Salomon CA4/3

Filed 11/1/24 P. v. Salomon CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, G063135

v. (Super. Ct. No. 95WF1578)

ALAN DAVID SALOMON, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Jonathan S. Fish, Judge. Affirmed. Rachel Varnell, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

* * *

A jury convicted defendant Alan David Salomon of one count of 1 second degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a); count 1), and one count of grand theft auto (§ 487.3; count 2). The jury also found true that defendant personally used a knife in the commission of count 1. (§ 12022, subd. (b).) The court sentenced defendant to a prison term of 19 years to life. In June 2023, defendant filed a petition for resentencing under section 1172.6. The trial court summarily denied the petition, and defendant timely filed a notice of appeal. Appointed counsel indicates she has found no arguable issues but suggests we exercise our discretion to independently review the record. Consistent with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, appointed counsel identified one issue to assist in our independent review: whether the court erred by denying defendant’s petition for resentencing at the prima facie stage. Defendant was given the opportunity to file written argument on his own behalf, and he has not done so. Although defendant has not filed a supplemental brief, we exercise our discretion to conduct an independent review of the record and appointed counsel’s brief. (People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216, 231-232.) We have examined the entire record and have not found an arguable issue on appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the postjudgment order. FACTS In June 2023, defendant filed a petition for resentencing and averred: “1. A complaint, information, or indictment was filed against me that allowed the prosecution to proceed under a theory of felony murder,