Opinion
E081265
08-30-2023
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RAMIRO TRUJILLO, Defendant and Appellant.
Richard L. Fitzer, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. No. FRE007327 David Cohn, Judge. Dismissed.
Richard L. Fitzer, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
McKINSTER, ACTING P. J.
On October 11, 2007, a jury convicted defendant and appellant, Ramiro Trujillo, of attempted murder (Pen. Code, §§ 664, 187, count 1). The jury additionally found true an allegation that defendant had personally and intentionally discharged a firearm in his commission of the attempted murder. (§ 12022.53, subd. (c).) The court sentenced defendant to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of 27 years to life. (Trujillo, supra, E044417.)
All further statutory references will be to the Penal Code.
We take judicial notice of our prior opinion from defendant's appeal from the original judgment (People v. Trujillo (July 31, 2008, E044417) [nonpub. opn.] (Trujillo)), which the People attached to their response to defendant's petition and of which they requested the court below take judicial notice.
On June 10, 2022, defendant filed a form petition for resentencing pursuant to former section 1170.95. After a hearing on May 5, 2023, at which defendant was represented by counsel, the trial court denied the petition.
Effective June 30, 2022, Assembly Bill No. 200 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.) amended and renumbered section 1170.95 as section 1172.6. (Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 10.)
On appeal, defendant's appointed counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo), setting forth a statement of the case, requesting that we exercise our discretion to independently review the record for error, and identifying one potentially arguable issue: whether the court erred in denying defendant's petition.
We gave defendant the opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief. We noted that if he did not do so, we could dismiss the appeal; nevertheless, he has not filed one. Under these circumstances, we have no obligation to independently review the record for error. (Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th. at pp. 224-231.) Rather, we dismiss the appeal. (Id. at pp. 231-232.)
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed.
We concur: MILLER J. CODRINGTON J.