Opinion
B303189
08-12-2020
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. LUIS BERNARDO QUINTANA, Defendant and Appellant.
Richard B. Lennon, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. BA364009) APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Ray G. Jurado, Judge. Affirmed. Richard B. Lennon, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
____________________
Luis Quintana appeals an order denying his request to strike his five-year Penal Code section 667, subdivision (a) serious felony enhancement due to Senate Bill No. 1393 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.) (SB 1393).
All statutory citations are to the Penal Code.
As we noted in our opinion in Quintana's direct appeal (People v. Quintana (Dec. 13, 2013, B241783) [nonpub. opn.]), a jury found him guilty of manslaughter (§ 192, subd. (a)) and found true an allegation that a principal was armed with a firearm (§ 12022, subd. (a)).
Quintana admitted he had a prior conviction that qualified as a strike (§§ 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d), 667, subds. (b)-(i)) and qualified as a prior serious felony conviction (§ 667, subd. (a)).
On May 23, 2012, the court sentenced Quintana to 18 years in state prison, composed of 12 years for manslaughter (the mid-term of six years, doubled due to his prior strike), one year because a principal was armed, and five years for his prior serious felony.
On November 12, 2019, Quintana filed a motion for resentencing pursuant to SB 1393. He asked the trial court to exercise its discretion to strike his five-year section 667, subdivision (a) serious felony enhancement. The court denied the motion. The court said even "[a]ssuming for [the] sake of argument" SB 1393 applied retroactively to Quintana, the court would exercise its discretion and deny the motion. Quintana appealed.
We appointed counsel to represent Quintana on appeal. After examining the record, counsel filed an opening brief raising no issues and asking this court to review the record independently under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.
On June 12, 2020, Quintana filed a supplemental brief.
When a defendant appeals the denial of postconviction relief, we have no independent duty to review the record for reasonably arguable issues. (People v. Cole (Aug. 3, 2020, B304329) ___Cal.App.5th___ [2020 WL 4435275, p. *8].) If the defendant files a supplemental brief, we evaluate any arguments presented in the brief and issue an opinion disposing of the trial court's order on the merits. (Ibid.) Thus we do not independently review the record, but we evaluate Quintana's argument in his supplemental brief and make a decision on the merits.
In his supplemental brief, Quintana argues the trial court erred because Senate Bill No. 620 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.) applies retroactively to him. This argument lacks merit because Quintana's initial motion was about a different law, SB 1393.
Furthermore, the law he addressed before the trial court, SB 1393, does not apply retroactively to Quintana. SB 1393 applies retroactively only to cases that were not yet final on January 1, 2019, the date the statute became effective. (People v. Garcia (2018) 28 Cal.App.5th 961, 972-973.) We affirmed his conviction on December 13, 2013. His judgment had been final for several years when SB 1393 became effective. (People v. Vieira (2005) 35 Cal.4th 264, 305-306 [judgment final when the time for petitioning for a writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court has passed]; In re Spencer (1965) 63 Cal.2d 400, 405 [judgment final when "the courts can no longer provide a remedy to a defendant on direct review"].)
DISPOSITION
The trial court's order is affirmed.
WILEY, J. We concur:
BIGELOW, P. J.
STRATTON, J.