Opinion
B308226
04-21-2021
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JUAN CHAMBASIS, Defendant and Appellant.
Derek Kowata, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. PA065446) APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Daniel B. Feldstern, Judge. Affirmed. Derek Kowata, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
____________________
Juan Chambasis appeals from the trial court's refusal at resentencing to strike firearm enhancements under Penal Code section 12022.53. Chambasis's appointed counsel filed an opening brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). We affirm the judgment.
All further section references will be to the Penal Code.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In 2012, Juan Chambasis was convicted of murder (counts 1 and 2), attempted murder (count 3), and discharging a firearm at an inhabited dwelling (count 4) in connection with a gang-related shooting. In our first opinion, we affirmed the judgment of conviction but made certain corrections to his sentence. The California Supreme Court granted review and transferred the case to us to reconsider a confrontation clause challenge to the gang expert's testimony in light of People v. Sanchez (2016) 63 Cal.4th 665. We again affirmed the judgment, as amended, in a second opinion. (People v. Meraz (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 1162.)
Chambasis was convicted along with two codefendants who are not parties to this appeal. --------
Chambasis then sought resentencing based on newly enacted laws. In a third opinion, we remanded the matter for resentencing to allow the trial court to consider whether to strike the firearm enhancements pursuant to section 12022.53, subdivision (h). We also directed the trial court to strike the section 186.22, subdivision (b)(1) enhancement, to strike the section 1202.45 parole revocation fine, to impose a $160 court security fee, to impose a $120 criminal conviction assessment, and to award 1,173 days of presentence custody credit. We affirmed Chambasis's judgment in all other respects. (People v. Meraz (Dec. 27, 2018, No. B245675) [nonpub. opn.].)
On September 18, 2020, Chambasis was resentenced. As to counts 1 and 2, the trial court again sentenced Chambasis to life without the possibility of parole plus 25 years for the firearm enhancement pursuant to section 12022.53, subdivision (d), with the sentence in count 2 to run concurrently with the sentence in count 1. As to count 3, the trial court imposed a consecutive life sentence with a minimum term of 25 years, representing the firearm enhancement under section 12022.53, subdivision (d). As to count 4, the trial court imposed a concurrent life sentence with a minimum term of 15 years. In short, the trial court exercised its discretion to impose the firearm enhancements under section 12022.53, subdivision (h), and followed our directions to amend the judgment. Chambasis timely appealed.
DISCUSSION
We appointed counsel to represent Chambasis on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief requesting independent review of the record for any arguable issues. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) We notified Chambasis that he could submit any claims, arguments, or issues that he wished our court to review. We have not received any response from Chambasis.
We have examined the entire record. We are satisfied no arguable issues exist and Chambasis's counsel has fully satisfied his responsibilities under Wende. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 279-284; Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441; see People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 123-124.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
BIGELOW, P. J. We concur:
GRIMES, J.
STRATTON, J.