Opinion
B301219
04-29-2020
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RAMIRO QUILES, Defendant and Appellant.
Roberta Simon, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. VA069128) APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Michael A. Cowell, Judge. Affirmed. Roberta Simon, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
____________________
In 2003, a jury convicted defendant and appellant Ramiro Quiles of one count of assault with a firearm (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(2)) and one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm (Pen. Code, § 12021, subd. (a)(1)). On April 29, 2003, the trial court sentenced defendant to an aggregate term of 36 years imprisonment. That sentence included a ten-year enhancement for defendant's use of a firearm (Pen. Code, § 12022.5, subd. (a)) and a five-year enhancement for defendant's prior serious or violent felony conviction (Pen. Code, § 667, subd. (a)(1)).
On September 18, 2018, following receipt of a letter from the Secretary of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, the trial court amended the judgment to strike the 10-year enhancement for defendant's use of a firearm.
On June 14, 2019, defendant filed a petition for resentencing, requesting that the trial court, on its own motion and in the interest of justice, strike the five-year sentencing enhancement pursuant to Senate Bill No. 1393, which amended Penal Code sections 667 and 1385 to give trial courts discretion to strike prior serious felony enhancements. On July 5, 2019, the trial court denied the petition.
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Defendant's appointed appellate counsel filed an opening brief in accordance with People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 requesting that we independently review the entire record to determine if there are any arguable issues. On January 29, 2020, we notified defendant that appointed appellate counsel had failed to find any arguable issues and that he had 30 days within which to independently brief any grounds for appeal, contentions, or arguments he wanted us to consider. Defendant did not file a supplemental brief.
We have reviewed the record and are satisfied that defendant's appointed appellate counsel has fully complied with her responsibilities and no arguable issues exist. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441; see People v. Alexander (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 341, 346-347 [Senate Bill No. 1393 does not apply to final convictions].)
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
KIM, J.
We concur:
BAKER, Acting P. J.
MOOR, J.