People v. Bautista CA4/3

Filed 3/24/26 P. v. Bautista 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, G065323

v. (Super. Ct. No. 17NF1915)

JUAN CARLOS BAUTISTA, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Michael J. Cassidy, Judge. Affirmed. Joanna McKim, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.

Defendant Juan Carlos Bautista appeals an order denying his 1 petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6. His appointed attorney filed a brief under the procedures described in People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216, declaring she was unable to find any issues to raise on Bautista’s behalf. Having reviewed the record ourselves, we also detect no arguable issues. We therefore affirm the trial court’s order. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In 2018, Bautista was individually charged with and convicted of multiple crimes. As relevant here, the jury convicted him of three counts of attempted premeditated murder and found he personally discharged a firearm during those crimes. (§§ 664/187, subd. (a); 12022.53, subds. (b), (c).) The trial court sentenced him to prison for 36 and one half years, plus an indeterminate term of 70 years to life. Following an appeal in which we affirmed Bautista’s convictions, his indeterminate term was reduced to 40 years to life. In 2024, Bautista petitioned for resentencing on his attempted murder convictions. (§ 1172.6.) At the hearing on his petition, Bautista refused to appear by video, and pursuant to section 1368, his attorney declared a doubt as to whether Bautista was competent. The trial court found section 1368 inapplicable and denied the petition for failure to make a prima facie showing for relief. On appeal, appointed counsel filed a brief raising no issues but requesting we independently review the record pursuant to People v. Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th 216. We informed Bautista of his right to file a