People v. Martinez CA4/3

Filed 1/5/24 P. v. Martinez 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, G062276

v. (Super. Ct. No. 05CF1582)

PAUL JAVIER MARTINEZ, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Steven D. Bromberg, Judge. Affirmed. Melissa Hill, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

We appointed counsel to represent Paul Javier Martinez on appeal from the trial court’s denial of his petition for resentencing benefits based on Penal Code section 1 1172.6. 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. The procedures set forth in People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, do not apply to appeals from the denial of section 1172.6 petitions. (People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216, 226, 231.) 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. (Id. at p. 231.) 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.) While no independent review of the record is compelled, the court retains discretion to independently review the record in any appeal based on section 1172.6. (Id. at p. 232.) We gave Martinez 30 days to file written argument on his own behalf. Martinez did not file a supplemental brief or letter. We exercise our discretion to independently review the record and find no arguable issue on appeal. We affirm the postjudgment order. FACTS The context for the limited issue of this appeal is taken from the prior nonpublished opinion, People v. Martinez (Sept. 14, 2012, G045646) (Martinez). As relevant to this appeal, Martinez was tried without any codefendant and a jury convicted