Filed 6/10/25 P. v. Torrez CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE

THE PEOPLE, B343021 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. LA090463) v. OSCAR TORREZ, Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Joseph A. Brandolino, Judge. Affirmed.

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

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. __________________________________ In 2022, a jury convicted appellant Oscar Torrez of two counts of robbery (counts 1 and 2), one count of burglary (count 3), two counts of possession of an assault weapon (counts 4 and 5), two counts of being a felon in possession of a firearm (counts 6 and 7), and one count of unlawful possession of ammunition (count 8). The court sentenced him to 22 years.1 He appealed, and we reversed the convictions for counts 4 through 7 (possession of an assault weapon and being a felon in possession of a firearm) and remanded for resentencing.

In November 2024, the trial court dismissed the convictions for counts 4 through 7 and resentenced Torrez to 20 years and 8 months, consisting of: (1) 16 years for count 1; (2) four years and eight months for count 2, to run consecutively; (3) seven years and four months for count 3, stayed under section 654, to run concurrently; and (4) two years for count 8, to run concurrently.

The court also calculated Torrez’s custody credits and conduct credits for the period before the original sentencing hearing, and directed the Department of Corrections to calculate Torrez’s conduct credits for the period following the original sentencing hearing. Torrez timely appealed.

Torrez’s appointed counsel filed an opening brief under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), identifying no

1 This consisted of: (1) 16 years for count 1; (2) four years and eight months for count 2, to run consecutively; (3) seven years and four months for count 3, stayed under section 654, to run concurrently; (4) eight months for count 4, to run consecutively; (5) eight months for count 5, to run consecutively; (6) two years for counts 6 and 7, both stayed under section 654 but otherwise to run concurrently; and (7) two years for count 8, to run concurrently.

arguable issues and requesting this court conduct an independent review of the record. Counsel included a declaration in which he stated he “wrote to appellant at the most current address I have for him . . . , explaining my evaluation of the record on appeal and my intention to file this pleading. In that letter, I also informed him of his right to file a supplemental brief.” In April 2025, we also sent Torrez a letter explaining he could, within 30 days, “submit a supplemental brief or letter stating any grounds for an appeal, or contentions, or arguments which [he] wishes this court to consider.” Torrez did not file a supplemental brief or letter.

We are satisfied that Torrez’s counsel has fully complied with his responsibilities. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 119.) We have independently reviewed the record and discern no arguable issue.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment.

DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

M. KIM, J.

We concur:

ROTHSCHILD, P. J.

WEINGART, J.