People v. Reyes

Full title: THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. FIDEL LUCAS REYES, Defendant and…

Court: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE

Date published: Sep 9, 2020

G058976 (Cal. Ct. App. Sep. 9, 2020)

Opinion

G058976

09-09-2020

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. FIDEL LUCAS REYES, Defendant and Appellant.

Susan S. Bauguess, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Respondent.

MOORE, ACTING P. J.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. No. 07CF1113) OPINION Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Kimberly Menninger, Judge. Affirmed. Susan S. Bauguess, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Respondent.

* * *

In 2009, a jury convicted defendant Fidel Lucas Ramirez of crimes involving sex offenses against more than one child. The trial court imposed an aggregate sentence of 30 years to life. On appeal, this court generally affirmed the judgment with minor corrections to the abstract of judgment. (See People v. Reyes (Jan. 27, 2011, G041773) [nonpub. opn.].)

In 2020, defendant filed a petition for resentencing claiming he was convicted of murder. (Pen. Code, § 1170.95.) The trial court summarily denied the petition because defendant was not convicted of murder.

Defendant filed an appeal. This court appointed counsel, who filed a brief setting forth the procedural facts. Counsel advised this court that no identifiable issues on appeal could be ascertained, but counsel raised one potential issue: whether the trial court had abused its discretion. (Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders); People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) Defendant filed a supplemental brief on his own behalf. Defendant did not address the merits of his appeal, but simply argued that he was entitled to Anders/Wende review.

We have conducted an independent review of the record and we have found no arguable issues that require briefing or argument. Accordingly, the order denying defendant's petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.95 is affirmed.

MOORE, ACTING P. J. WE CONCUR: ARONSON, J. IKOLA, J.