Opinion
B336018
10-14-2024
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. TONY MADRIGAL, Defendant and Appellant.
Andrea S. Bitar, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. MA052486, Robert G. Chu, Judge.
Andrea S. Bitar, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
BENDIX, Acting P. J.
We decide by memorandum disposition this appeal from resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.75. (Cal. Stds. Jud. Admin., § 8.1.)
Unspecified statutory citations are to the Penal Code.
On August 21, 2012, following a plea of no contest, the trial court convicted defendant and appellant Tony Madrigal of one count of assault by a prisoner (§ 4501). Defendant admitted to a great bodily injury allegation under section 12022.7, and a prior conviction under section 245, subdivision (a)(2). The trial court sentenced defendant to the mid term of four years for the assault count, plus three years for the section 12022.7 enhancement and an additional one year under section 667.5, subdivision (b) for the prior conviction.
On October 11, 2022, the trial court indicated it would recall defendant's sentence and resentence him in accordance with section 1172.75. That statute invalidates enhancements under section 667.5, subdivision (b), with exceptions not relevant here, and provides a mechanism for courts to recall sentences that include such enhancements and resentence defendants. (§ 1172.75, subds. (a), (c)-(d).) The trial court appointed counsel for defendant.
In advance of the resentencing hearing, defendant's counsel filed a memorandum requesting full resentencing, and asking that the trial court, in addition to striking the section 667.5 enhancement, also strike the section 12022.7 enhancement and resentence defendant to the low term of two years on his section 4501 conviction.
The trial court held a resentencing hearing on November 30, 2023. After hearing argument from counsel, the court stated, "[I]t is well-settled law that the judge who accepts a plea bargain is bound to impose a sentence within the limits of that bargain." The court further stated that "even if the court [was] able to alter the sentence at this time," it would not do so apart from striking the section 667.5 enhancement. The court stated it had reviewed defendant's postconviction records including disciplinary and rehabilitation records, and whether age, time served, and diminished physical capacity, if any, had reduced defendant's risk for future violence. The court also considered defendant's criminal history and whether defendant had suffered childhood trauma. The court found defendant presented an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety. Accordingly, the court resentenced defendant to seven years.
The court stated its ruling was without prejudice, and if defendant "continues to maintain a clean disciplinary record" over the next few years, the court would "strongly consider striking his three-year enhancement under Penal Code [section] 12022.7 as well."
Defendant appealed. Appointed appellate counsel filed a brief identifying no arguable issues. We invited defendant to file a supplemental brief, which he did.
Because this is an appeal from postconviction relief, we are not required to conduct an independent review of the record, as we might be in a direct appeal from a criminal conviction. (People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216, 221-222 (Delgadillo); see People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) When a defendant files a supplemental brief, however, we are "required to evaluate the specific arguments presented in that brief and to issue a written opinion." (Delgadillo, at p. 232.)
We decline to exercise our discretion to conduct an independent review. (See Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 230.)
Defendant's supplemental brief contains no argument. It instead consists entirely of scanned documents, specifically two "laudatory chronos" describing defendant's good conduct in prison, and an "Inmate Assignment History" indicating defendant's jobs, education, and self help in prison between 2014 and 2024. Defendant does not explain the significance of these documents or how they demonstrate error on the part of the trial court. Defendant therefore provides no grounds to reverse or modify the judgment.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: WEINGART, J., KLINE, J. [*]
[*] Retired Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.