Opinion
F086142
11-08-2023
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ALFRED GOMEZ, Defendant and Appellant.
Sylvia W. Beckham, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tulare County No. PCF331316B. Juliet L. Boccone, Judge.
Sylvia W. Beckham, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
THE COURT
In a previous appeal, this court vacated the gang-related crime enhancements on Alfred Gomez's convictions for murder and attempted murder. (People v. Reyes and Gomez (Aug. 1, 2022, F080133 [nonpub. opn.] (Gomez).) On remand, the prosecutor declined to retry those enhancements, and Gomez was resentenced to 57 years to life in prison.
Gomez filed an appeal, but his appointed counsel raised no argument, instead asking "this court [to] independently review the entire record _." (See People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) Having done so, we affirm the judgment.
BACKGROUND
As stated in Gomez, "This case involve[d] two victims. One was killed, the other survived. As the victims were walking down the side of a road, Gomez and [Isidro] Reyes pulled up behind them in a car. Gomez exited, pointed a shotgun at one victim and pulled the trigger but nothing happened. That victim ran away. Gomez then shot and killed the other victim." (Gomez, supra, F080133.)
For these actions, Gomez was convicted of murder and attempted murder. Both convictions were enhanced by firearm findings. The jury also found true the gang-related crime enhancements. (*2, 5) We vacated the gang enhancements, but otherwise affirmed and sent the case back to the trial court for further proceedings. Ultimately, the gang-related crime enhancements were dismissed, and Gomez was sentenced to serve 57 years to life in prison.
DISCUSSION
Gomez's appointed appellate counsel filed an opening brief summarizing the pertinent facts, raising no issues, and requesting this court to independently review the record. (See Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pp. 441-443.) Counsel's brief also includes a declaration indicating Gomez was apprised of the opportunity to file his own brief with this court.
After counsel's brief was filed, we likewise invited Gomez to submit a brief. To date, he has not done so. Having examined the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a more favorable disposition to Gomez.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
Before Poochigian, Acting P. J., Detjen, J. and Snauffer, J.