California Courts of Appeal, 2023

People v. Trujillo CA4/2

California Courts of Appeal · Decided May 19, 2023

Opinion

Filed 5/19/23 P. v. Trujillo CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, E080163 v. (Super.Ct.No. FWV08784) EDWARD R. TRUJILLO, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Bridgid M.

McCann, Judge. Dismissed.

John Derrick, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

On March 21, 1996, a jury convicted defendant and appellant, Edward R. Trujillo, of attempted, premeditated murder (Pen. Code, §§ 664 and 187, subd. (a), count 1);1 false imprisonment (§ 236 count 2); and conspiracy to commit murder (§§ 182, subd. (a)(1) & 187, subd. (a), count 3). The jury additionally found true allegations as to all three counts that defendant personally used a firearm (§ 12022.5, subd. (a)(1)) and personally inflicted great bodily injury (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)). The court sentenced defendant to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of 32 years to life.2 On September 20, 2019, defendant filed a form petition for resentencing pursuant to former section 1170.95.3 At a hearing on October 28, 2022, at which defendant was represented by counsel, the trial court denied the petition at the prima facie stage.

On appeal, defendant’s appointed counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo),4 setting forth a statement of the case, requesting that we exercise our discretion to independently review the record for error, and identifying one potentially

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated. 2 We take judicial notice of our prior nonpublished opinion from defendant’s appeal from the original judgment (People v. Lopez (May 7, 1998, E018507) [nonpub. opn.]), which the People attached to their response to defendant’s petition and which they requested the court below take judicial notice.

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.)

4 In Delgadillo, the California Supreme Court held that Wende procedures do not apply in appeals from the denial of a section 1172.6 postjudgment petition. (Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at pp. 224-226.) arguable issue: whether the court’s instruction of the jury with CALJIC 3.02 on the natural and probable consequences doctrine as applied to the false imprisonment charge could also have been utilized by the jury to convict defendant of attempted murder.

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.)

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS McKINSTER J.

We concur:

RAMIREZ P. J.

RAPHAEL J.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.