Filed 6/7/24 P. v. Mendoza CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE, D082476 Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCN063747) RAUL BARBOZA MENDOZA, Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Lisa R. Rodriguez, Judge. Affirmed.

William Paul Melcher, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

In 1999, a jury convicted Raul Barboza Mendoza of multiple felony offenses. The convictions included murder (Pen. Code,1 § 187); robbery (§ 211); residential burglary (§ 459); false imprisonment by force (§ 236);

1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified. evading a police officer (Veh. Code, § 2800.2, subd. (a)); vehicle theft (Veh.

Code, § 10851, subd. (a)); and attempted murder (§§ 187 and 664). Mendoza was sentenced to three consecutive terms of life without the possibility of parole plus 149 years. The sentence was enhanced by one year for two prison prior convictions. (§ 667.5, subd. (b).) The court stayed the term for one of the priors.

In 2023, the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation notified the trial court that Mendoza was potentially eligible for resentencing under section 1172.75.

The court appointed counsel and issued a tentative order denying the petition. The court found Mendoza was not eligible for relief because his prior conviction was for a felony sex offense. The court held a hearing and both parties submitted on the tentative order. The court adopted the tentative order and denied the petition for resentencing.

Mendoza filed a timely notice of appeal.

Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) indicating counsel has not been able to identify any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks the court to independently review the record for error as mandated by Wende. We offered Mendoza the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded.

DISCUSSION The facts of the underlying crimes are not relevant to the issues raised by this appeal. We will not include a statement of facts in this opinion.

As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a Wende brief and asks the court to review the record for error. To assist the court in its review, and

in compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), counsel has identified two possible issues for the court’s consideration: 1. Whether the one year enhancement for the prison prior was eligible for relief under section 1172.75.

2. Whether the enhancement for the prison prior that was imposed and stayed was eligible for relief under section 1172.75.

We have reviewed the record for error as required by Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal.

Competent counsel has represented Mendoza on this appeal.

DISPOSITION The order denying Mendoza’s petition for resentencing under section 1172.55 is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, J.

WE CONCUR:

McCONNELL, P. J.

BUCHANAN, J.