Opinion
B336610
11-26-2024
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ARMANDO GRANADOS, Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA398784
THE COURT:On September 24, 2012, the Los Angeles County District Attorney filed an information charging defendant and appellant Armando Granados with three counts of attempted willful, deliberate, and premeditated murder (counts 1-3; Pen. Code, §§ 664/187, subd. (a)) and shooting into an inhabited dwelling (count 4; § 246). A gang enhancement (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(C)) was alleged as to all four counts. For count 1, it was further alleged that a principal personally used, intentionally discharged, and proximately caused great bodily injury with a firearm. For counts 2 and 3, it was further alleged that a principal personally used and intentionally discharged a firearm during those offenses. (§ 12022.53, subds. (b)-(e).) (People v. Granados (Feb. 25, 2020, B257627) [nonpub. opn.] (Granados II).)
All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.
Defendant pled not guilty and denied all allegations. (Granados II, supra, B257627.)
After trial, the jury found defendant guilty on all four counts. It found the gang enhancement true as to all counts, but it found the firearm allegations for counts 2 and 3 not true. (Granados II, supra, B257627.)
Defendant was sentenced to a term of 62 years to life in state prison. He timely appealed, and on January 27, 2016, we affirmed the judgment. (People v. Granados (Jan. 27, 2016, B257627) [nonpub. opn.] (Granados I).) In so ruling, we found defendant's reliance upon People v. McCloud (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 788 misplaced and noted that the Supreme Court had granted review of the Court of Appeal's decision in People v. Canizales (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 820, a case critical of McCloud. (Granados I, supra, B257627)
Defendant filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court, and on September 11, 2019, the Supreme Court remanded the matter back to the Court of Appeal with directions to vacate our original decision and reconsider the matter in light of People v. Canizales (2019) 7 Cal.5th 591. (People v. Granados, S232571.)
On remand, defendant submitted supplemental briefs. He argued, inter alia, that the "case must be remanded to allow the trial court to consider whether to strike the firearm enhancement imposed against [him] (§§ 12022.5, subd. (c), 12022.53, subd. (h))."
On February 25, 2020, in accordance with the Supreme Court's order, we vacated our original opinion and issued a new opinion, remanding the matter for resentencing pursuant to Senate Bill No. 620. In all other respects, the judgment was affirmed. (Granados II, supra, B257627.)
Following remand, defense counsel filed a sentencing memorandum as well as a supplemental letter from Cindy Shortt, clinical director and cofounder of the Prism Way at Twin Towers, praising defendant. The People opposed the request for resentencing.
At the January 30, 2024, hearing, the trial court indicated that it had read the original sentencing transcript, Granados II, supra, B257627, all documents filed by the parties, and relevant case law. After entertaining oral argument, the trial court exercised its discretion and found that "the factors in favor of not striking the 12022.53 far outweigh the circumstances for striking the 12022.53."
Defendant timely filed a notice of appeal.
Appointed counsel filed a brief raising no arguable issues and asking this court to conduct an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441 (Wende). On September 13, 2024, we directed appointed counsel "to send the record of this appeal and a copy of the appellant's opening brief to appellant immediately. Within 30 days of the date of this notice, appellant may submit a supplemental brief or letter stating any grounds for an appeal, or contentions, or arguments which appellant wishes this court to consider."
To date, no supplemental brief has been received.
Because the instant appeal is not from his conviction, defendant is not entitled to our independent review of the record pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 or its federal constitutional counterpart, Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738. (People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216, 226 ["the procedures set out in Anders and Wende do not apply to an appeal from the denial of postconviction relief"]; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 119 [independent judicial review mandated by Anders applies only to first appeal as of right]; see also Pennsylvania v. Finley (1987) 481 U.S. 551, 559.) And, because defendant neglected to file a supplemental brief, there are no arguments for us to consider. (Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 232.)
Because neither defendant nor appellate counsel identified an issue warranting reversal, we dismiss the appeal as abandoned.
The appeal is dismissed.
ASHMANN-GERST Acting P. J. CHAVEZ, J. HOFFSTADT, J.