People v. Estrada CA2/2

Filed 8/7/23 P. v. Estrada CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, B321175

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. KA020112) v.

MAXIMO GONZALES ESTRADA,

Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT: Maximo Estrada purports to appeal from a proceeding pursuant to People v. Franklin (2016) 63 Cal.4th 261 (Franklin). He contends an appeal is authorized under Penal Code1 section 1237, subdivision (b) because his substantial rights were violated by ineffective assistance of counsel and the superior court’s failure to provide him with a Spanish language interpreter. We appointed counsel to represent Estrada on appeal. After

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

examination of the record, counsel filed an opening brief raising no issues and asking this court to independently review the record and address any arguments raised by appellant in a supplemental brief in accordance with People v. Delgadillo (2022)14 Cal.5th 216, 369–370. Appellant filed his own supplemental brief, in propria persona. Having reviewed the record below, we conclude the superior court made no order affecting appellant’s substantial rights. Hence, the appeal from the Franklin proceeding on May 25, 2022, is not from an appealable order under section 1237, subdivision (b), and must be dismissed. BACKGROUND On June 20, 1994, appellant was convicted by jury of two counts of kidnapping for robbery (§ 209, subd. (b); counts 1 & 2), two counts of second degree robbery (§ 211; counts 3 & 4), two counts of assault with great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(1); counts 5 & 6), and one count of attempt to burn (§ 455; count 7). The jury found true the allegation as to each of the seven counts that appellant personally used a metal rod in the commission of the offense (§ 12022, subd. (b)). The trial court sentenced appellant to consecutive indeterminate life sentences with the possibility of parole plus six years on counts 1 and 2. The court also imposed and stayed sentence on counts 3, 4, 5, and 6, and imposed a concurrent term of three years on count 7. On February 8, 2020, appellant filed a motion for a Franklin proceeding pursuant to section 1203.01 and In re Cook (2019) 7 Cal.5th 439 (Cook), in which he sought the opportunity to gather mitigating evidence regarding his youth-related characteristics and circumstances at the time of the offenses to be presented at a future youthful offender parole hearing before the