People v. Sanchez CA4/3

Filed 1/26/21 P. v. Sanchez 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, G058894

v. (Super. Ct. No. 00SF0657)

LEONARDO PIMENTEL SANCHEZ, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Gregg L. Prickett, Judge. Affirmed. Christine Vento, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. * * *

INTRODUCTION This is defendant Leonardo Pimentel Sanchez’s second appeal following his conviction for first degree murder. In his first appeal, we affirmed the judgment of conviction but remanded for the trial court to hold a resentencing hearing with the limited purpose of exercising its discretion whether to strike Sanchez’s two prior serious felony sentencing enhancements under Penal Code section 667, subdivision (a). (All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.) At the resentencing hearing, the trial court declined to strike the enhancements. Appointed appellate counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), setting forth the facts of the case and requesting we review the entire record. Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), counsel identified a potential issue to assist us in our independent review. We provided Sanchez 30 days to file written argument on his own behalf; he has submitted several pieces of handwritten correspondence, none of which identifies any appealable issue or related argument. We have independently examined the entire record, appointed appellate counsel’s Wende/Anders brief, and Sanchez’s correspondence; we have found no reasonably arguable issue. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) We therefore affirm. FACTS We provided a detailed summary of the underlying facts in our opinion from Sanchez’s first appeal, People v. Sanchez (July 10, 2019, G055222) [nonpub. opn.] (Sanchez I). In short, the prosecution presented evidence that in 1992, the partially- clothed body of then 19-year-old Cari Anne Parnes was found in an orange tree orchard. Parnes appeared to have suffered blunt force trauma to the upper left temple area of her head and had bruising and discoloration on her neck and left shoulder area. Heavy rains that occurred around the time Parnes’s body was discovered hindered the collection of evidence.