People v. Rojas CA2/1

Filed 5/30/24 P. v. Rojas CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

THE PEOPLE, B334786

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. PA068009) v.

AARON ESQUEDA ROJAS,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Daniel B. Feldstern, Judge. Affirmed. Richard B. Lennon, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. ____________________________

Because this appeal is determined by well-settled legal principles, we decide the matter by memorandum disposition. (Cal. Stds. Jud. Admin., § 8.1.) In 2012, a jury convicted defendant Aaron Esqueda Rojas, also known as Horacio Cruz Amaya, of second degree murder and evading an officer causing death. The trial court sentenced defendant to 15 years to life on the murder count and added three 1-year prior conviction enhancements under Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b) for a total of 18 years to life. The court imposed but stayed execution of sentence on the evasion count under Penal Code section 654. In 2023, the trial court appointed counsel for defendant and held a resentencing hearing pursuant to Penal Code section 1172.75. As mandated by that statute, the trial court struck the three enhancements under Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b), and resentenced defendant to 15 years to life. Defendant appealed. Appointed appellate counsel filed a brief identifying no arguable issues. We invited defendant to file a supplemental brief, which he did. Because this is an appeal from postconviction relief, we are not required to conduct an independent review of the record, as we might be in a direct appeal from a criminal conviction. (People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216, 221–222; see People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) When a defendant files a supplemental brief, however, we are “required to evaluate the specific arguments presented in that brief and to issue a written opinion.” (Delgadillo, at p. 232.) We first note that defendant is appealing from a favorable court ruling in which the trial court granted him relief, namely the striking of three enhancements.