People v. Martin CA2/2

Filed 2/10/21 P. v. Martin CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

THE PEOPLE, B306008

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. KA089862) v.

JOEL MARTIN,

Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT: Appellant and petitioner Joel Martin (defendant) appeals from an order denying his petition for resentencing pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.95.1 His appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, raising no issues. On October 27, 2020, we notified defendant of his counsel’s brief and gave him leave to file, within 30 days, his own

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code, unless otherwise indicated.

brief or letter stating any grounds or argument he might wish to have considered. Because defendant's appeal is from an order denying post-conviction relief, he is not entitled to our independent review of the record. (See People v. Cole (2020) 52 Cal.App.5th 1028, 1038-1039, review granted Oct. 14, 2020, S264278; People v. Serrano (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 496, 503.) However, as defendant has filed a supplemental brief, he is entitled to our evaluation of the arguments presented in that brief. (See People v. Cole, supra, at p. 1040.) We have done so, and affirm the order. BACKGROUND In 2010, defendant was charged with murder in the shooting death of Carlos Espinoza (Espinoza), in violation of section 187, subdivision (a). The information alleged pursuant to section 12022.53, subdivisions (b), (c), and (d), that defendant personally used a firearm in the commission of the crime and that he personally and intentionally discharged the firearm, causing the victim’s death.2 A jury convicted defendant of second degree murder, but deadlocked on the firearm allegations, and after declaring a mistrial, a second trial was held solely as to those allegations. The second jury found the allegations to be true. (Martin I, supra, B232642 at p. 2.) Defendant was sentenced to 15 years to life for the murder and a consecutive term of 25 years to life under section 12022.53, subdivision (d) for his use of a firearm causing death. Terms for the remaining firearm enhancements were imposed and stayed. (Ibid.)