People v. Quiroz CA4/3

California Court of Appeal Jan 5, 2023 No. G061569Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the denial of the defendant's petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6 after conducting an independent review of the record and finding no arguable issues.

Issues

Whether the procedural protections of Wende and Anders apply to appeals from the denial of postconviction relief under section 1172.6.
Whether the trial court erred in denying the defendant's petition for resentencing.
Whether the denial of the petition constituted prejudicial error.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“In the interest of justice, we have examined the entire record as well as appointed counsel’s Wende/Anders brief and find no reasonably arguable issue.”

“Using our independent analysis and judgment in a review of the entire appellate record, we find no arguable issues. Consequently, we affirm the trial court’s order denying Quiroz’s postconviction relief.”

Filed 1/5/23 P. v. Quiroz 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, G061569

v. (Super. Ct. No. 02CF3148)

SERGIO QUIROZ, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Elizabeth G. Macias, Judge. Affirmed. Athena Shudde, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

After a prima facie hearing for resentencing pursuant to Penal Code former 1 section 1170.95 (now § 1172.6), the trial court denied defendant Sergio Quiroz’s petition for resentencing. Appointed 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), appointed counsel also identified three potential issues to assist in our independent review. Quiroz was provided 30 days to file written argument on his own behalf, but he did not do so. In the interest of justice, we have examined the entire record as well as appointed counsel’s Wende/Anders brief and find no reasonably arguable issue. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) We therefore affirm.

2 FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In 2004, a jury found Quiroz guilty of premeditated and deliberate attempted murder (§§ 664, subd. (a), 187, subd. (a)), criminal threats (§ 422), and two counts of street terrorism (§ 186.22, subd. (a)), all felonies. The jury also found the attempted murder and criminal threats offenses were committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(A)), and that during the commission of the attempted murder, Quiroz personally discharged a firearm resulting in great bodily injury to another (§ 12022.53, subd. (d)). Quiroz was sentenced to a prison term of 25 years to life on the attempted murder conviction and its related firearm enhancement. A sentence

People v. Quiroz CA4/3

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE,

SERGIO QUIROZ, OPINION

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

MOTOIKE, J.

O’LEARY, P.J.

MOORE, J.

AI Brief