People v. Armenta CA4/1

Filed 6/11/26 P. v. Armenta CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, D086550 Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. JCF18905) RICHARD ARMENTA, Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Imperial County, Poli Flores, Judge. Affirmed.

Richard Armenta, in pro. per., and John F. Schuck, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

In 2008, a jury found Richard Armenta guilty of first degree murder and conspiracy to commit murder (Pen. Code,1 §§ 187 & 182, subd. (a)(1)).

The alleged gang enhancement was found true. The court sentenced Armenta to life in prison without the possibility of parole.

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code. Armenta appealed, and this court reduced the murder conviction to second degree murder and otherwise affirmed the judgment. (People v. Armenta (Apr. 29, 2010, D054071 [nonpub. opn.].) On remand Armenta was sentenced to 25 years to life in prison.

In 2022, Armenta filed a petition for resentencing under section 1172.6.

Ultimately the court appointed counsel, received briefing, and held a hearing. The court found Armenta was a major participant in the crimes as a coconspirator acting with the intent to kill. The court found Armenta not eligible for relief under section 1172.6 and denied the petition.

Armenta filed a timely notice of appeal from the order which denied his petition for resentencing.

STATEMENT OF FACTS We discussed the facts of the offense in our prior opinion in People v. Armenta, supra, D054071. We will not discuss the facts again in this opinion.

Appellate counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo) indicating counsel has not been able to identify any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks the court to exercise its discretion to independently review the record for error in the manner we would if the case was controlled by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.

We notified Armenta that he could file his own brief on appeal.

Amenta responded to our notice by filing his own brief.

In his lengthy brief, Armenta principally challenges his original conviction. This appeal is from the denial of his petition for postjudgment resentencing. Amenta’s convictions were affirmed years ago. He challenges the original jury instructions and argues his trial counsel was ineffective for not arguing Armenta’s position as he would have done. He also argues his appellate counsel was ineffective in finding no arguable issues to present to the court.

We recognize Armenta wants to challenge his convictions. The present appeal is from the denial of the resentencing petition not the convictions. His submission does not raise any arguable issues for reversal on appeal.

DISCUSSION Counsel has filed a brief under Delgadillo and asks us to exercise our discretion to independently review the record for error. We have done so, and our review has not discovered any potentially meritorious issues for reversal.

Competent counsel has represented Armenta in this appeal.

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

HUFFMAN, J.* WE CONCUR:

DATO, Acting P. J.

CASTILLO, 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.