Filed 10/17/25 P. v. Marquez CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, D084859 Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SWF1301249) JONATHAN MARQUEZ, Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Riverside County, John M. Monterosso, Judge. Affirmed.

Stephanie L. Gunther, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

In 2016, Jonathan Marquez was convicted of multiple felonies and found true a prison prior (Pen. Code,1 § 667.5, subd. (b)) and a strike prior under section 667, subdivisions (b)–(i). The felonies included attempted murder (§§ 187, subd. (a), 664) and assault with a deadly weapon.

1 Statutory references are to the Penal Code. In 2023, Marquez sought resentencing under section 1172.75. The court resentenced Marquez, imposing the original sentence but with the prison prior removed. Marquez sought further resentencing, requesting the court to strike the serious/violent felony prior. The trial court received briefs and reviewed the record. The court denied the motion to strike the prior.

The court imposed a determinate term of 33 years plus a consecutive indeterminate term of 14 years to life in prison.

Marquez filed a timely notice of appeal.

Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 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 advised Marquez of his right to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded.

We do not find it necessary to include a statement of facts of the offenses. The facts do not present any potential issues on this appeal.

DISCUSSION As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a Wende brief and asks the court 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 two possible issues that were considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal.

1. Whether the court erred in denying the motion to strike the serious/violent felony prior.

2. Whether the court erred in imposing an upper term.

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

Competent counsel has represented Marquez on this appeal.

DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, J.*

* Retired Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.

WE CONCUR:

CASTILLO, Acting P. J.

RUBIN, J.