People v. Muro CA4/3

Filed 3/20/24 P. v. Muro 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, G062539

v. (Super. Ct. No. 99CF1258)

JOSEPH BRENT MURO, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Jonathan S. Fish, Judge. Affirmed. Johanna Pirko, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. * * *

In 1999, an inmate of the Orange County Central Men’s Jail, Joseph Brent Muro, slashed another inmate’s throat. A jury convicted Muro of premeditated attempted murder resulting in great bodily injury; the trial court sentenced him to a total term of 39 years to life in state prison. We affirmed his conviction in 2004. (People v. Muro (June 10, 2004, G032235) [nonpub. opn.].) 1 In 2023, Muro filed a petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6, asserting he could not presently be convicted of attempted murder under sections 188 and 189, which were amended in 2019 to limit the scope of the traditional felony-murder rule and eliminate the natural and probable consequences theory for murder. The trial court denied his petition, and Muro filed his notice of appeal. We appointed counsel to represent Muro on appeal. Counsel reviewed his petition for resentencing and the appellate record, consulted with staff counsel at Appellate Defenders, Inc., and found no arguable issues; she filed a brief pursuant to the traditional procedures set forth in People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo), and consistent with People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738. While not arguing against her client, counsel set forth the facts of the case and asked this court to conduct its own independent review of the appellate record, which we have done. Counsel also advised Muro of his right to file his own written argument; he has not done so. Though we are not required to do so in postjudgment appeals, we have exercised our discretion to review the record. (Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 232.) Like counsel, we have been unable to find any arguable appellate issue. We therefore affirm.