People v. Secundino CA4/3

Filed 4/16/25 P. v. Secundino 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, G063685

v. (Super. Ct. No. 06CF2256)

INOCENTE SECUNDINO, JR., OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

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

A jury convicted defendant Inocente Secundino, Jr. of one count of first degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a))1 and one count of street terrorism (§ 186.22, subd. (a)). The jury also found true the special circumstance allegation that defendant committed the murder while he was an active participant in a criminal street gang and to further activities of the gang (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(22)) along with other gang and firearm enhancements alleged on the murder count (§§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1), 12022.53, subd. (d)). The court sentenced defendant to a life term without the possibility of parole for the first degree murder conviction and a consecutive prison term of 25 years to life for the section 12022.53, subdivision (d) enhancement. The court also imposed and stayed a 10-year sentence for the section 186.22, subdivision (b)(1) enhancement and imposed a concurrent two-year sentence for the street terrorism offense. In October 2023, defendant filed a petition for resentencing under section 1172.6. The trial court summarily denied the petition, and defendant filed a timely notice of appeal. Appointed counsel indicates he has found no arguable issues but suggests we exercise our discretion to independently review the record. Defendant was given the opportunity to file written argument on his own behalf and has done so. (People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216, 231–232.) The issues defendant raises are described below. We have examined the entire record and have not found an arguable issue on appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the postjudgment order.