People v. Medrano CA2/1

California Court of Appeal Mar 1, 2022 No. B314152Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court dismissed the appeal because the defendant failed to file a supplemental brief after appointed counsel found no arguable issues, and because the trial court lacked jurisdiction to rule on the post-conviction motion.

Issues

Whether an appeal from an order denying post-conviction relief should be dismissed when the appellant fails to file a supplemental brief after counsel finds no arguable issues.
Whether the trial court had jurisdiction to grant a motion to modify a restitution fine as a post-appeal collateral attack on a judgment.

Disposition. Dismissed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Where, as here, the appellant does not file a supplemental brief, we may deem the appeal to be abandoned and dismiss the appeal.”

“Even if we did not dismiss the appeal as abandoned under Serrano, dismissal of the appeal is required because the trial court did not have jurisdiction to grant the motion”

Filed 3/1/22 P. v. Medrano CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

THE PEOPLE, B314152

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. MA021127) v.

JESUS MEDRANO,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Kathleen Blanchard, Judge. Appeal dismissed. Jill Ishida, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. _______________________________

On March 2, 2001, a jury found Jesus Medrano guilty of unlawful driving or taking of a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)), petty theft with a prior (Pen. Code, § 666),1 and two counts of first degree residential burglary (§ 459). The jury found true several special allegations, including that Medrano had sustained multiple prior strike convictions (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i) & 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)) and a prior serious felony conviction (§ 667, subd. (a)(1).) The trial court sentenced Medrano to 55 years to life in prison: a third strike, consecutive sentence of 25 years to life for each burglary count, plus a consecutive term of five years for the prior serious felony enhancement. The court imposed concurrent terms for the other offenses. The court ordered Medrano to pay a $5,000 restitution fine. (Former § 1202.4, subd. (b).) Medrano appealed, and this court affirmed the judgment in 2002. (People v. Medrano (May 29, 2002, B151317) [nonpub. opn.].) On June 18, 2021, Medrano filed a motion to modify the restitution fine under section 1237.2. Citing People v. Dueñas (2019) 30 Cal.App.5th 1157, he sought a hearing on his ability to pay the fine or, in the alternative, for the trial court to stay the fine. On June 24, 2021, the trial court summarily denied the motion. Medrano filed a timely notice of appeal, and this court appointed counsel for him. After examination of the record, counsel filed an opening brief pursuant to People v. Serrano (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 496 (Serrano), informing this court that she had found no arguable issues to raise on appeal; she had sent

People v. Medrano CA2/1

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

THE PEOPLE, B314152

JESUS MEDRANO,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief