People v. Licon

Full title: THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. SERGIO GUTIERREZ LICON, Defendant…

Court: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento)

Date published: Mar 25, 2019

C087795 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 25, 2019)

Opinion

C087795

03-25-2019

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. SERGIO GUTIERREZ LICON, Defendant and Appellant.

Robie, Acting P. J.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. No. 06F03222)

On May 7, 2018, this court issued a limited remand in this matter to allow the trial court "to exercise its discretion under [Penal Code] sections 12022.5, subdivision (c) and 12022.53, subdivision (h), as amended by Senate Bill No. 620 (Stats. 2017, ch. 682, § 2, eff. Jan. 1, 2018), and, if appropriate following exercise of that discretion, to resentence defendant accordingly." (People v. Licon (May 7, 2018, C084549) [nonpub. opn.].)

On remand, defendant Sergio Gutierrez Licon argued that his crimes were an aberration. He said he was remorseful and would like someday to go home to Mexico. The trial court declined to exercise its discretion to strike the firearm enhancements previously imposed and declined to resentence defendant.

Counsel filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and asked that we review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. Defendant filed a supplemental brief in which he apologized for committing his crimes, expressed his ability to be a productive member of society, articulated his sadness about not seeing his children, and generally asked this court for mercy. Defendant did not, however, raise any cognizable legal issues.

Having examined the record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

/s/_________

Robie, Acting P. J. We concur: /s/_________
Hoch, J. /s/_________
Krause, J.