People v. Rengel CA2/1

Filed 2/28/25 P. v. Rengel CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

B336333 THE PEOPLE, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA405056) Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

GUSTAVO RENGEL,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from the judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Serena R. Murillo, Judge. Appeal dismissed. Steven A. Brody, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Gustavo Rengel filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Supreme Court alleging that part of his prison sentence was unlawful. The Supreme Court issued an order to show cause (OSC) returnable in the superior court. After the superior court resentenced Rengel, Rengel appealed. Rengel’s appellate counsel found no arguable issues to raise on appeal and filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). Because the superior court’s order is not an appealable order, we dismiss the appeal.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY In May 2014, a jury convicted Gustavo Rengel of two counts of assault with a semiautomatic firearm (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (b))1 and, as to count 1, found true an allegation that Rengel personally used a firearm in the commission of an assault. The jury also found true gang enhancement allegations as to each count. (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(c).) The court sentenced Rengel to 31 years in prison. In 2016, we affirmed the judgment in an unpublished opinion. (People v. Soltero (Nov. 30, 2016, B260134, B262570).) The Supreme Court denied review on March 15, 2017. On August 16, 2022, Rengel filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the California Supreme Court asserting, among other grounds, that the imposition of the firearm and gang enhancements resulted in an unlawful sentence and requesting “the court to dismiss [one] of these enhancements.” The Attorney General filed an informal response to the petition conceding that