Opinion
E081132
09-12-2023
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JORGE ESPINOZA GORDILLO, Defendant and Appellant.
David R Greifinger, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County No. RIF112151 John D. Molloy, Judge. Dismissed.
David R Greifinger, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
McKINSTER ACTING P. J.
On April 6, 2004, a jury convicted defendant and appellant Jorge Espinoza Gordillo of attempted deliberate and premeditated murder (Pen. Code, §§ 664, 187, count 1) and assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1), count 2). The jury additionally found true an allegation as to the count 1 offense that defendant had personally inflicted great bodily injury causing the victim to become comatose or suffer permanent paralysis. (§ 12022.7, subd. (b).) The court sentenced defendant to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of life plus five years. (Gordillo, supra, E036259.)
All further statutory references will be to the Penal Code.
We take judicial notice of our prior opinion from defendant's appeal from the original judgment (People v. Gordillo. (May 18, 2005, E036259) [nonpub. opn.]), of which the People requested the court below take judicial notice.
On July 29, 2022, defendant filed a form petition for resentencing pursuant to former section 1170.95. After a hearing on April 14, 2023, at which defendant was present and represented by counsel, the trial court denied the petition.
Effective June 30, 2022, Assembly Bill No. 200 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.) amended and renumbered section 1170.95 as section 1172.6. (Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 10.)
On appeal, defendant's appointed counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo), setting forth a statement of the case, requesting that we exercise our discretion to independently review the record for error, and identifying one potentially arguable issue: whether the court erred in denying defendant's petition at the prima facie stage.
We gave defendant the opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief. We noted that if he did not do so, we could dismiss the appeal; nevertheless, he has not filed one. Under these circumstances, we have no obligation to independently review the record for error. (Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th. at pp. 224-231.) Rather, we dismiss the appeal. (Id. at pp. 231-232.)
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed.
We concur: MILLER J., CODRINGTON J.