People v. Munguia CA2/2

Filed 6/20/23 P. v. Munguia CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, B322556

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. v. KA090669)

MICHAEL HUMBERTO MUNGUIA,

Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT: Defendant and appellant Michael Humberto Munguia appeals from the trial court’s July 12, 2022, order summarily denying his motion for resentencing under Senate Bill No. 483 (2021–2022 Reg. Sess.) (Senate Bill 483). Because the order is nonappealable, we dismiss defendant’s appeal.

BACKGROUND In 2010, a jury found defendant guilty of two counts of criminal threats (Pen. Code, § 422)1 and two counts of assault with a firearm (§ 245, subd. (a)(2)). The jury also found true various sentencing enhancement allegations. Following a bench trial, the trial court found that defendant had suffered two prior convictions within the meaning of section 667.5, subdivision (b). The court sentenced defendant to a total term of 30 years four months in state prison, which included two one-year section 667.5, subdivision (b) enhancements. On direct appeal, we remanded the matter with directions that the trial court strike certain sentence enhancements other than those associated with section 667.5, subdivision (b). (People v. Munguia (Apr. 16, 2013, B232339) [nonpub. opn.], pp. 13–14.) We otherwise affirmed the judgment. (Id. at p. 14.) On remand, the court resentenced defendant to a prison term of 20 years four months. In July 2022, defendant filed a motion to strike the section 667.5, subdivision (b) enhancements pursuant to newly enacted Senate Bill 483. On July 12, 2022, the trial court summarily denied the motion on the ground that defendant lacked “‘standing’” to bring it. Defendant filed a notice of appeal. Counsel was appointed to represent defendant in connection with this appeal. After reviewing the record, appointed counsel filed a brief raising no issues and asking this court to follow the procedures set forth in People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo). On April 17, 2023, we notified defendant that he had 30 days within which to personally submit