Filed 2/24/25 P. v. Montenegro CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, D084183 Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. FWV1101427) CARMEN MONTENEGRO, Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Bernardino County, Gregory S. Tavill, Judge. Affirmed.

Carmen Montenegro, in pro. per.; and Richard Jay Moller, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

In 2014, a jury convicted Carmen Montenegro of first-degree premeditated murder (Pen. Code,1 § 187, subd. (a)) and found true an allegation she personally used a deadly weapon in the commission of the offense (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1)). The court sentenced Montenegro to an

1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code. indeterminate term of 25 years to life plus one year for the weapon enhancement.

In 2024, Montenegro filed a petition for resentencing under section 1172.6. The court appointed counsel, received briefing and held a hearing, and determined Montenegro had not presented a prima facie case for resentencing under section 1172.6.

The court reviewed the record of conviction and found Montenegro was the only perpetrator. The jury was not instructed on theories of aiding and abetting, felony murder or natural and probable consequences. The court found the record of conviction demonstrated Montenegro was the only perpetrator and was the actual killer. Accordingly, the court found she was not eligible for relief as a matter of law.

Montenegro filed a timely notice of appeal.

Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 indicating counsel has not been able to identify any potentially meritorious issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel notes this court has discretion to independently review the record for error.

We notified Montenegro of her right to file her own brief on appeal.

She has responded with a supplemental brief.

In her supplemental brief, Montenegro does not address the merits of her petition. Rather, she complains counsel did not adequately consult with her and that she was not present at the hearing on the petition. She contends she was denied due process and is thus entitled to a new hearing.

We have carefully reviewed the supplemental brief and its attachments. She has not identified any potentially meritorious issues for reversal on appeal.

DISCUSSION As we have noted, counsel has not identified any potentially meritorious issues. Counsel invites the court to exercise its discretion to independently review the record for error. To assist the court in its review, and in compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, counsel has identified a possible issue the was considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: Whether the court erred in denying the resentencing petition without first issuing an order to show cause and conducting an evidentiary hearing.

We have independently reviewed the record for error. We have not discovered any potentially meritorious issues for reversal on appeal.

Competent counsel has represented Montenegro on this appeal.

DISPOSITION The order denying appellant’s petition for resentencing under section 1172.6 is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

KELETY, J.

CASTILLO, J.