California Court of Appeal Aug 28, 2015 No. E062763Unpublished
Filed 8/28/15 P. v. Lopez CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, E062763
v. (Super.Ct.No. FSB023832)
CHRISTINE LOPEZ, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, E063073
v. (Super.Ct.No. FSB023832)
MICHELLE ANN RUIZ,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Michael A. Smith,
Judge. (Retired judge of the San Bernardino Super. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice
pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Affirmed.
1
Cindi B. Mishkin, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant Christine Lopez.
Richard Power, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
This court appointed counsel to represent defendants on appeal. Both counsel
have filed briefs under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders
v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, setting forth a statement of the case, and a brief
statement of the facts. Both counsel identify two potential arguable issues: (1) whether
the court properly determined that both defendants were ineligible for resentencing under
section 1170.126; and (2) whether the petitions were heard and ruled upon by the proper
judge, in accordance with Proposition 36.
Both defendants were offered an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief.
Ruiz did not file a brief. Lopez filed a handwritten letter brief. She stated: “I’m writing
this letter with a few more issues and new evidence.” She then cites the name of a case,
with no actual citation, and simply asserts that “an aider and abettor may not be convicted
of first degree premeditated murder under the ‘natural and probable consequence’ (NPC)
doctrine.” In addition, Lopez attached the transcript from a portion of a police interview
with Ruiz, and the reporter’s transcript of the testimony of an unidentified witness, at an
unidentified hearing. Lopez provides no argument or explanation in her letter brief.
4
Ultimately, the contents of her letter brief and attached transcripts have no bearing on
whether she was eligible for resentencing under Proposition 36. The court properly
found that she was ineligible, since her current convictions were for the violent and
serious felonies of murder (§ 187, subd. (a)), and robbery (§ 211). (§§ 1170.126,
subd. (e)(1), 1192.7, subd. (c)(1) & (19).)
Under People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have conducted an independent
review of the record and find no arguable issues.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
HOLLENHORST Acting P. J.
We concur:
MILLER J.
CODRINGTON J.
5
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court held that the defendants were ineligible for resentencing under the Three Strikes Reform Act because their current convictions for murder and robbery constitute violent and serious felonies.
Issues
Whether the trial court properly determined that the defendants were ineligible for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.126.
Whether the resentencing petitions were heard and ruled upon by the proper judge in accordance with Proposition 36.
Disposition. Affirmed
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“The court denied the petition since her current convictions were for the violent and serious felonies of murder (§ 187, subd. (a)) and robbery (§ 211), which made her ineligible for resentencing.”