Opinion
D080853
11-07-2022
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JUAN JOSE CASILLAS, Defendant and Appellant.
Christine M. Aros, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Riverside County, Super. Ct. No. RIF130939, Matthew C. Perantoni, Judge. Affirmed.
Christine M. Aros, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
HUFFMAN, J.
In 2010, a jury convicted Juan Jose Casillas of one count of first degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187) and one count of attempted murder (§§ 664 & 187, subd. (a)). The jury also found true an allegation that Casillas personally and intentionally discharged a firearm causing death or great bodily injury (§ 12022.53, subd. (c)).
All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
Casillas was sentenced to prison for an indeterminate term of 50 years to life.
Casillas appealed and this court affirmed the judgment in an unpublished opinion. (People v. Casillas (May 22, 2012, D058622).)
In 2022, Casillas filed a petition for resentencing under section 1170.95 (now renumbered section 1172.6).
The court appointed counsel, reviewed the record, and held a hearing. The court found that both Casillas and his codefendant each shot the victim. The court concluded the record clearly establishes the jury did not rely on the natural and probable consequences instruction in finding Casillas guilty. The court found Casillas was the actual killer. Defense counsel agreed with the court's analysis of the record of conviction. The court denied the petition for resentencing.
Casillas filed a timely notice of appeal.
Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), indicating counsel has not been able to identify any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks the court to review the record for error as mandated by Wende. We offered Casillas the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded.
We set forth the facts of the offenses in our opinion, People v. Casillas, supra, D058622, we will not repeat them here.
DISCUSSION
As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a Wende brief and asks the court to review the record for error. To assist the court in its review, and in compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S.738 (Anders), counsel has identified an issue that was considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: Whether the trial court erred in denying Casillas's petition for resentencing.
We have reviewed the entire record as required by Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Casillas on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The order denying Casillas's petition for resentencing under section 1172.6 is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: McCONNELL, P. J., DATO, J.