Opinion
D083265
08-07-2024
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. EMILIO R. GUERRERO, Defendant and Appellant.
Emilio R. Guerrero, in pro. per.; Matthew A. Lopas, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Bernardino County, No. FSB1200606, Elia V. Pirozzi, Judge. (Retired Judge of San Bernardino Sup. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Affirmed.
Emilio R. Guerrero, in pro. per.; Matthew A. Lopas, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.
In 2014, a jury convicted Emilio R. Guerrero and a codefendant of two counts of first degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a)) along with other offenses and found Guerrero discharged a firearm causing death or great bodily injury (§ 12022.53, subds. (b), (c), (d) &(e)(1)).
All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified.
The court imposed a total sentence of 160 years to life in prison.
Guerrero appealed and this court affirmed the judgment in an unpublished opinion. (People v. Guerrero (Aug. 12, 2016, D069934).)
In 2022, Guerrero filed a form petition for resentencing under section 1172.6. The court appointed counsel, received briefing, reviewed the record of conviction, and held a hearing.
The court found Guerrero was a direct aider and abettor who acted with malice aforethought. The court also found the jury was not instructed on felony murder or the doctrine of natural and probable consequences. The court found Guerrero was not eligible for relief under section 1172.6 and therefore denied the petition without issuing an order to show cause or holding an evidentiary hearing.
Guerrero filed a timely notice of appeal.
Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo) indicating counsel has not been able to identify any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks the court to exercise its discretion under Delgadillo to independently review the record for error.
We advised Guerrero of his right to submit his own brief on appeal. He has responded with a brief letter. In his submission, Guerrero does not address any issues regarding the trial court's order denying his petition.
Guerrero simply asks the court to grant leniency or give him a "break." While we understand his distress about the very lengthy sentence, it is beyond our authority in this appeal to grant a more lenient sentence. Guerrero has not identified any potentially meritorious issue in this appeal.
DISCUSSION
As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a Delgadillo brief and asks the court to independently review the record for error. To assist the court in its review, and in compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, counsel has identified two possible issues that were considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: (1) Whether the court relied on any information outside the record of conviction; and (2) Whether the record of conviction conclusively establish Guerrero was ineligible for relief as a matter of law.
We exercised our discretion to review the record for error. Our review has not identified any potentially meritorious issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Guerrero on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The order denying Guerrero's petition for resentencing under section 1172.6 is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: O'ROURKE, J., RUBIN, J.