People v. Carranza

Full title: THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JUAN OCHOA CARRANZA, Defendant…

Court: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR

Date published: Dec 11, 2020

B304552 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 11, 2020)

Opinion

B304552

12-11-2020

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JUAN OCHOA CARRANZA, Defendant and Appellant.

Richard B. Lennon, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

CURREY, J.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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(a). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115(a). Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA258968 APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Craig Elliott Veals, Judge. Dismissed. Richard B. Lennon, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

In 2005, a jury convicted defendant and appellant Juan Ochoa Carranza of first degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a))¹ and found he personally and intentionally discharged a firearm resulting in great bodily injury (§ 12022.53, subd. (d)). The court sentenced Carranza to state prison for an indeterminate term of fifty years to life. The court imposed a restitution fine of $10,000.

1 All undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. --------

In 2019, Carranza filed a motion for modification of his sentence. In it, he argued his $10,000 restitution fine, as well as other fines and assessments, should be stayed under People v. Dueñas (2019) 30 Cal.App.5th 1157 because he had and has no ability to pay them. The court summarily denied the petition. Carranza timely appealed.

Appellate counsel filed a brief identifying no issues and invited this court to independently review the record for arguable issues. This court notified Carranza he had 30 days to file a supplemental brief, but he did not file one. We have no independent duty to review the record for reasonably arguable issues. (People v. Cole (2020) 52 Cal.App.5th 1023, 1028, 1039-1040, review granted Oct. 14, 2020, S264278.) We therefore dismiss Carranza's appeal as abandoned. (Ibid.)

DISPOSITION

The appeal is dismissed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

CURREY, J.

We concur:

WILLHITE, Acting P.J.

COLLINS, J.