People v. Solorio CA4/3

Filed 9/14/20 P. v. Solorio 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, G058712

v. (Super. Ct. No. 06CF1702)

ADRIAN SOLORIO, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Kimberly Menninger, Judge. Affirmed. John F. Schuck, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. * * *

In 2009, a jury convicted appellant Adrian Solorio of committing first degree murder and street terrorism when he was 22 years old. (Penal Code, §§ 187, 186.22, subd. (a); all further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.) The jury also found Solorio committed the murder to benefit a criminal street gang, as an active gang participant, and that he personally discharged a firearm causing death. (§§ 186.22, subd. (b), 190.2, subd. (a)(22), and 12022.53, subd. (d).) The trial court sentenced Solorio to life in prison without the possibility of parole for the murder and an additional 25-years-to-life term for the firearm finding. We affirmed the judgment in 2011. (People v. Solorio (Jan. 28, 2011, G042192) [nonpub. opn.].) In 2019, Solorio petitioned for resentencing on the firearm finding and for a hearing related to youth offender parole eligibility. The trial court denied Solorio’s petitions and he appealed the court’s “[d]enial of PC 12022.53.” His appointed appellate counsel filed a brief under the procedures outlined in People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 and Solorio has not filed a supplemental brief. Because our review of the record discloses no arguable issue, we affirm the postjudgment order denying Solorio’s petition for resentencing.