Opinion
D077326
07-01-2020
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JOEL ELIAS SANCHEZ, Defendant and Appellant.
Thomas Owen, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. INF051951) APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Riverside County, John D. Molloy, Judge. Affirmed. Thomas Owen, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
In 2010, a jury convicted Joel Elias Sanchez of second degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a)) and found that the crime was committed for the benefit of a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)). The jury also found true an allegation that Sanchez personally discharged a firearm causing death or great bodily injury (§ 12022.53, subd. (d)). Sanchez was sentenced to an indeterminate term of 15 years to life for second degree murder with a consecutive sentence of 25 years to life for the firearm enhancement.
All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified.
Sanchez appealed and this court affirmed his conviction in an unpublished opinion. (People v. Sanchez (June 4, 2012, D060315) [nonpub. opn.].)
In 2019, Sanchez filed a petition for resentencing under section 1170.95. He alleged, inter alia, that he had been convicted on a natural and probable consequences theory and was not a major actor in the crime. The court appointed counsel and held a hearing. The court reviewed our prior opinion and determined that Sanchez was the actual killer and that he was not eligible for relief under section 1170.95. Defense counsel did not disagree that Sanchez was the actual killer.
Appellate counsel has asked the court to take judicial notice of our prior opinion. We grant the request for judicial notice.
Sanchez filed a timely notice of appeal.
Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) indicating he has not been able to identify any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks the court to review the record for error as mandated by Wende. We offered Sanchez the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded.
The facts of the offense are fully set forth in our prior opinion. We will not repeat them here. The opinion does establish that Sanchez was the person who shot and killed the victim. --------
DISCUSSION
As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a Wende brief and asks this court to review the record for error as mandated by Wende. To assist the court in reviewing the record, and in compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), counsel has identified the following possible issue that counsel considered in evaluating the potential merit of this appeal: whether the trial court erred in dismissing the petition under section 1170.95.
We have reviewed the entire record as mandated by Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Sanchez on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The order denying appellant's petition under section 1170.95 is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, Acting P. J. WE CONCUR: O'ROURKE, J. IRION, J.