People v. Arriola CA4/1

Filed 5/26/26 P. v. Arriola CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, D086136 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. SCN388950) v. EDUARDO ARRIOLA, Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Kelly Mok, Judge. Affirmed.

Jill M. Klein, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.

Eduardo Arriola was originally convicted of premeditated first degree murder by lying in wait (Pen. Code, §§ 187, 189 & 190.2, subd. (a)(15)). The jury found true a firearm enhancement under section 12022.53, subdivision (d). Arriola was sentenced to life in prison without parole plus 25 years to life for the firearm enhancement. Arriola appealed, and this court upheld the conviction but held the trial court erred in denying Arriola’s motion to strike the firearm enhancement. This court remanded the case to the trial court to conduct a resentencing hearing. (People v. Arriola (Sept. 17, 2024, D080780).

On remand, the trial court struck the punishment for the firearm enhancement but declined to strike the true finding on the use of a firearm so that, the Board of Parole Hearings would be required to consider the firearm use if Arriola is ever eligible for parole.

Arriola filed a timely notice of appeal.

Appellate counsel has filed a brief under the authority of 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 Arriola the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded.

We discussed the facts of the offense and the question of whether the trial court applied the wrong standard in declining to strike the firearm enhancement. We do not intend to discuss the facts of the offense again.

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 of the record and in compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, counsel has identified a possible issue that was considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal.

We have independently 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 Arriola in this appeal.

DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, J.* WE CONCUR:

DATO, Acting P. J.

KELETY, 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.