Opinion
G057990
01-28-2020
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JUAN CISNEROS GUZMAN, Defendant and Appellant.
Marilee Marshall, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. No. 99NF1436) OPINION Appeal from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Lance Jensen, Judge. Affirmed. Marilee Marshall, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
* * *
In 2000, a jury convicted Juan Cisneros Guzman of committing lewd acts on a child under the age of 14, and found true the allegation Guzman committed the offenses against more than one victim. The trial court sentenced him to life in prison. In 2019, Guzman filed a petition for resentencing based on Penal Code section 1170.95 (§ 1170.95), which allows a "person convicted of felony murder or murder under a natural and probable consequences theory" to petition for resentencing if certain conditions are present. The trial court denied his petition, finding Guzman had not set forth a prima facie case for relief under section 1170.95 because he was not convicted of murder.
Guzman appealed the resentencing order. His appointed counsel filed a brief under the procedures outlined in People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738. Counsel's brief raised no issues, but asked this court to independently review the record on appeal. To assist the court in its review, counsel identified the following issue for examination: Is Guzman eligible for resentencing? Guzman subsequently filed a letter brief with attachments. He has not requested to have appellate counsel relieved.
Following Wende guidelines, we have reviewed counsel's brief, Guzman's letter and attachments, and the appellate record, including the matter identified by his appointed counsel, and have found no arguable issue. Accordingly, we affirm the order denying his resentencing petition. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 443.)
ARONSON, J. WE CONCUR: O'LEARY, P. J. MOORE, J.