Opinion
C088834
03-11-2020
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ALFREDO M. GARCIA, Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. Nos. NCR92960, NCR92013)
Appointed counsel for defendant Alfredo M. Garcia filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and asking this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant appeals from the trial court's order declining to strike his firearm enhancements after this court remanded the case for exercise of its discretion in that regard. After reviewing the entire record, we see no arguable error in defendant's favor and affirm the judgment.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The facts underlying defendant's convictions are described in People v. Escovar (May 18, 2018, C080973) [nonpub. opn.] at pages 1-2 (Escovar), and we need not recount them here. It suffices to say that a jury found defendant guilty of 29 felonies related to his torturing, threatening and robbing several men who worked for him at a marijuana grow, as well as multiple weapon and drug charges. The trial court sentenced defendant to an aggregate term of 98 years four months to life in prison, including enhancements under Penal Code sections 12022.53, subdivision (c) and 12022.5.
We note that while defendant's true name is Alfredo Garcia and this was the name used at trial, the original case was filed against him based on his identification using one of his aliases, Antonio Lopez Escovar. (Escovar, supra, C080973, at p. 1, fn. 1.)
Further undesignated references are to the Penal Code. --------
On appeal, this court affirmed but remanded for the trial court's consideration of Senate Bill No. 620 (Stats. 2017, ch. 682, §§ 1-2), which amended sections 12022.5 and 12022.53 to allow discretion pursuant to section 1385 to strike or dismiss an enhancement. (Escovar, supra, C080973 at pp. 9-10.)
On remand, the trial court acknowledged its discretion but declined to strike the enhancements. Defendant timely appeals.
DISCUSSION
Appointed counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts and procedural history of the case and requests this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days from the date the opening brief was filed. More than 30 days have elapsed, and defendant has not filed a supplemental brief. Having undertaken an examination of the entire record pursuant to Wende, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
/s/_________
Duarte, J. We concur: /s/_________
Blease, Acting P. J. /s/_________
Krause, J.