People v. Lopez CA4/3

Filed 6/18/25 P. v. Lopez 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, G064161, G064206

v. (Super. Ct. No. 15CF0005)

GUILLERMO LOPEZ, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from postjudgment orders of the Superior Court of Orange County, Andre Manssourian, Judge. Affirmed as to case number G064161 and dismissed as to case number G064206. Allen G. Weinberg, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent. * * *

In 2017, a jury convicted Guillermo Lopez (Lopez) of multiple sex offenses. The trial court sentenced him to a total prison term of 25 years to life. Our court affirmed the judgment. (People v. Lopez (June 10, 2019, G055475) [nonpub. opn.].) In March 2024, Lopez filed a motion to modify and stay restitution fines in excess of $200; he separately filed a petition for resentencing “Pursuant [to] All Applicable Sections of the Penal Code [Sections 1170, 1171, 1172] and Assembly Bill 1540 (2021).” The trial court denied his motion to stay restitution fines, stating since Lopez did not serve the district attorney’s office, it was an improper ex parte communication. The court also denied Lopez’s petition for resentencing as an ex parte communication and denied both motions on their merits. Lopez appealed each denial separately. We assigned case number G064161 to Lopez’s appeal from the denial of his request for resentencing and case number G064206 to his appeal from the denial of his request to stay restitution fines. The appeals were later consolidated on the court’s own motion for all purposes. Counsel for Lopez filed briefs pursuant to the procedures set forth in People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo). Counsel notified the court that he reviewed the record in the case and found no arguable issues. 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, which we have done. Counsel advised Lopez that briefs were filed on his behalf in accordance with the procedures in Delgadillo, that he could file supplemental briefs of his own, and that if he did not, the appeals would likely be dismissed. This court also notified Lopez he could file supplemental briefs and that if he did not, the appeals may be dismissed as abandoned.