People v. Solorio CA4/3

Filed 5/12/23 P. v. Solorio 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, G061730

v. (Super. Ct. No. 06CF1702)

ADRIAN SOLORIO, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Cheri T. Pham. Affirmed. Correen Ferrentino, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

We appointed counsel to represent Adrian Solorio on appeal. Counsel filed a brief that set forth the facts of the case. Counsel did not argue against her client but advised the court she found no issues to argue on his behalf. Counsel advised the court that the procedures set forth in People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), do not apply to this case. (People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216, 226, 231 (Delgadillo).) Therefore, when appointed appellate counsel finds no viable issues, counsel should file a brief informing the court that counsel found no arguable issues and including a concise narration of facts. (Ibid.) The reviewing court should send the brief to the defendant with notice the defendant may file a supplemental brief or letter within 30 days, and if the defendant does not, the court may dismiss the appeal. (Id. at pp. 231-232.) However, no independent review of the record is compelled. (Id. at p. 232.) If no brief or letter is filed, the court may dismiss the appeal without issuing an opinion but should notify the defendant of the dismissal. (Ibid.) The court retains discretion to independently review the record in any Penal Code section 1172.6 appeal (all further statutory references are to the Penal Code). (Ibid.) Counsel requested this court exercise its discretion to conduct an independent review, which we have. Counsel provided information about issues she considered to assist the court in conducting a discretionary independent review of the record. (Anders, supra, 386 U.S. at pp. 744-745.) Counsel identified two issues: (1) did the trial court err by finding Solorio ineligible for relief based on collateral estoppel; and (2) did the court err by finding Solorio ineligible for relief based on evidence he was the actual killer. We gave Solorio 30 days to file written argument on his own behalf. If the defendant raises issues in a supplemental brief or letter, the court must evaluate the arguments raised and issue a written opinion. (Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 232.) Solorio filed a supplemental brief and we address his claims anon.