People v. Manzano CA4/1

Filed 1/24/22 P. v. Manzano CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE, D078762

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. CF-11489)

FRANCISCO MANZANO,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Imperial County, Poli Flores, Jr., Judge. Affirmed. Matthew A. Lopas, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. In 2004, a jury found Francisco Manzano guilty of two counts of

criminal threats (Pen. Code,1 § 422), and one count of possession of a firearm by a felon (§ 12021, subd. (a)(1)). Manzano was acquitted of the remaining

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.

counts and the jury found not true an alleged enhancement for the personal use of a firearm. In a bifurcated trial, the court found true two prior strike convictions (§ 667, subds. (b)-(i)). The court reduced the criminal threat convictions to misdemeanor. Manzano was sentenced to an indeterminate term of 25 years to life in prison for possession of a firearm by a felon. Manzano appealed and this court affirmed the judgment in an unpublished opinion. (People v. Manzano, D044688 (Aug. 2, 2005).) In 2021, Manzano filed a petition to modify his three strikes sentence under section 1170.126. Thereafter, the court appointed counsel, received briefing, and heard testimony and argument. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court denied the petition for resentencing. Manzano filed a timely notice of appeal. Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), indicating counsel has not been able to identify any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks the court to review the record for error as mandated by Wende. We offered Manzano the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded. STATEMENT OF FACTS Appellate counsel has provided a statement of facts taken from our prior opinion. We will adopt that statement of facts for background information. “On June 9, 2002, at approximately 3:00 p.m., Mark C. (Mark), who was then nine years old, was home alone in the house in which he lived with his mother, Claudia M. (Claudia) and his siblings. Mark received a telephone call from Manzano. Manzano is Claudia’s ex-husband and he did not live