People v. Robles CA4/1

Filed 7/25/25 P. v. Robles CA4/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE, D084048

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD284788)

ZEUS ROBLES,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Robert O. Amador, Judge. Affirmed.

Richard Schwartzberg, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Zeus Robles’s appellate counsel has filed a brief under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) indicating he has not been able to identify any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel identifies two potential

issues under Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, 744-745 (Anders) and asks this court to review the record for error as mandated by Wende. We offered Robles the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he did not do so. Our independent review confirms there are no arguable issues on appeal. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A jury convicted Robles of assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code,1 § 245, subd. (b); count 1), residential burglary (§ 459; count 2), shooting at an inhabited dwelling (§ 246; count 3), and illegal possession of a firearm (§ 29800, subd. (a)(1); counts 4 and 5). It found true an allegation that he personally used a firearm in the commission of count 1. (§ 12022.5, subd. (a).) Robles admitted he had a prior conviction that was a serious and/or violent felony (§§ 1192.7, subd. (c); 667.5, subd. (c)), and that he committed the instant offenses while serving a parole term following a prior conviction for a violent felony within the meaning of section 667.5, subdivision (c) (§§ 1203.085, subd. (a); 3000). The trial court sentenced Robles to an aggregate term of 32 years eight months. On direct appeal, we reversed Robles’s count 3 and 5 convictions and remanded for resentencing. (People v. Robles (Nov. 29, 2023, D079676) [nonpub. opn.].) On remand, the trial court denied Robles’s motion to dismiss the strike under People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497, finding Robles came within the spirit of the “Three Strikes” law. Under section 1385 subdivision (c)(2)(E), which addresses whether an enhancement should be dismissed because “[t]he current offense is connected to prior victimization or childhood trauma,” the court found that Robles’s trauma and drug history did