People v. Espinoza CA4/3

Filed 1/16/25 P. v. Espinoza 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, G063254

v. (Super. Ct. No. 12ZF0139)

GUILLERMO ESPINOZA, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Patrick H. Donahue, Judge. Affirmed. Bruce L. Kotler, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No Appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent. * * *

In September 2016, Guillermo Espinoza pleaded guilty to voluntary manslaughter and admitted to personally using a firearm in the commission of that offense. The court sentenced him to a term of 21 years in prison. In June 2023, Espinoza petitioned the court for resentencing pursuant to Penal Code section 1172.6.1 The court appointed counsel to represent Espinoza, but later denied the petition without an evidentiary hearing. Espinoza now appeals from the trial court’s denial of his petition. Counsel was appointed to represent him on appeal. Appointed counsel informed us in his declaration he conducted an analysis of potential appellate issues, and that the case was also reviewed by a staff attorney at Appellate Defenders, Inc. Counsel filed a brief pursuant to the procedures set forth in People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo), consistent with People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738. While not arguing against his client, counsel set forth the facts of the case and asked this court to conduct its own independent review of the appellate record. Counsel advised Espinoza of his right to file a written argument on his own behalf; he has not done so. We nonetheless exercise our discretion to conduct an independent review of the record. (Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 232.) FACTS Espinoza was charged with murder (§ 187, subd. (a)), conspiracy to commit murder (§ 182, subd. (a)(1)), and (as later interlineated) voluntary