People v. Hernandez CA4/3

Filed 8/18/23 P. v. Hernandez 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, G062207 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 05NF3238) v. OPINION EDGAR MEJIA HERNANDEZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Robert A. Knox, Judge. Affirmed. Richard Jay Moller, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. * * *

In 2007, a jury convicted Edgar Mejia Hernandez of attempted murder 1 (Pen. Code, §§, 664, subd. (a), 187, subd. (a)) along with related charges; it also found true the allegation that Hernandez personally discharged a firearm which caused great bodily injury. The trial court sentenced Hernandez to life in prison with the possibility of parole on the attempted murder charge, plus a consecutive term of twenty-five years to life for the gun enhancement. We affirmed his conviction. (People v. Hernandez (June 11, 2008, G039235) [nonpub. opn.].) In 2022, without the assistance of counsel, Hernandez filed a petition for resentencing pursuant to section 1170.95 (later renumbered 1172.6). The trial court appointed counsel to represent him. The People filed a written response, and Hernandez filed a brief in support of his petition. In early 2023, the court denied the petition after concluding Hernandez had failed to make a prima facie showing that he was entitled to relief. Hernandez filed a timely notice of appeal from that ruling. We appointed counsel to represent Hernandez on appeal. After conducting his analysis of potential appellate issues, counsel informed us in his declaration that he had reviewed the appellate record and consulted with a staff attorney at Appellate Defenders, Inc., who also reviewed the record. Counsel then filed a brief pursuant to the procedures set forth in People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, suggesting that he was unable to find an issue to argue on Hernandez’s behalf. While not arguing against his client, counsel set forth the facts of the case and asked this court to conduct its own independent review of the appellate record.