People v. Padilla CA4/3

Filed 1/12/24 P. v. Padilla 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, G062503

v. (Super. Ct. No. 99CF3187)

MICHAEL ANTHONY PADILLA, JR., OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Elizabeth G. Macias, Judge. Reversed and remanded. Richard Jay Moller, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. * * *

Defendant Michael Anthony Padilla, Jr., pleaded guilty to one count of 1 attempted murder (Pen. Code, §§ 187, subd. (a), 664) and one count of street terrorism (§ 186.22, subd. (a)). He also admitted he committed the attempted murder for the benefit of a criminal street gang (§ 182.22, subd. (b)(1)). In exchange for the plea, the prosecution dismissed one count of attempted murder, enhancements pursuant to section 12022, subdivision (b)(1) and section 12022.7, and a willful, deliberate, and premeditated allegation pursuant to section 664, subdivision (a). The court sentenced defendant to 10 years in state prison as follows: (1) 7 years on the attempted murder count; and (2) a consecutive term of three years for the gang enhancement. The court stayed sentence on the street terrorism count pending successful completion of sentence on the attempted murder count. In May and June 2022, defendant filed petitions for resentencing under 2 former section 1170.95 (now § 1172.6). The trial court summarily denied defendant’s petitions for resentencing, and defendant appealed. Defendant’s appointed counsel advised the court he was unable to find an issue to argue on defendant’s behalf and requests that we review the entire record. Consistent with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, appointed counsel identified the following issue to assist in our independent review: whether the trial court erred by denying the petition at the prima facie stage and not issuing an order to show cause. Defendant was given the opportunity to file written argument on his own behalf, and he did. (People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216, 231-232.) In his supplemental brief, defendant does not address the question of whether he qualifies for resentencing relief. Instead, he contends he signed the plea agreement under extreme duress. These contentions raise no arguable issues for reversal.