People v. Sanchez CA5

Filed 6/13/24 P. v. Sanchez CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, F086695 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. F09905025) v.

LAURO SANCHEZ, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. John F. Vogt, Judge. Rex A. Williams, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Levy, Acting P. J., Smith, J. and De Santos, J.

INTRODUCTION In 2010, appellant Lauro Sanchez was found guilty by jury of premeditated attempted murder (Pen. Code,1 §§ 664/187, subd. (a), count 1), second degree robbery (§ 211, count 2), and assault with a firearm (§ 245, subd. (a)(2), count 3). In addition, the jury found true enhancements for the personal use of a firearm (§ 12022.5, subd. (a), count 3); the personal discharge of a firearm causing great bodily injury (§ 12022.53, subd. (d), counts 1 & 2); and the personal infliction of great bodily injury (§ 12022.7, subd. (a), counts 1-3). The trial court sentenced him to life with the possibility of parole on count 1, plus 25 years to life for personal use of a firearm proximately causing great bodily injury. In 2022, Sanchez filed a petition seeking resentencing on his conviction for premeditated attempted murder under section 1172.6. Following the appointment of counsel, the submission of briefs by the parties, and a hearing, the superior court denied Sanchez’s petition, finding that he had failed to state a prima facie case for relief. On appeal, appellant’s counsel filed a brief which summarized the facts and procedural history with citations to the record, raised no issues, and asked this court to independently review the record pursuant to both People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 and People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Sanchez also filed a supplemental brief, asking this court to review matters pertaining to his underlying criminal conviction. On May 31, 2024, Sanchez filed a motion requesting the appointment of an interpreter to assist him with translating legal documents, and an extension of time to file another supplemental brief. We deny Sanchez’s motion and affirm the court’s denial of his petition for resentencing.