Filed 12/31/19 P. v. Torres CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

JESUS TORRES,

Defendant and Appellant.

E073201

(Super.Ct.No. RIF1407100)

OPINION

APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. John D. Molloy, Judge. Affirmed.

Thomas E. Robertson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

A jury found defendant and appellant Jesus Torres guilty of sexual intercourse or sodomy with a child under the age of 10 (Pen. Code, § 288.7, subd. (a), count 1), engaging in oral copulation or sexual penetration with a child under the age of 10 (§ 288.7, subd. (b), count 2), and committing a lewd or lascivious act on a child under the age of 14 by use of force (§ 288, subd. (b)(1), count 3). A trial court sentenced him to a total term of 65 years to life in state prison.

Defendant appealed his convictions, and this court affirmed the judgment. (People v. Torres (Feb. 22, 2017, E064174) [nonpub. opn.].)

On September 30, 2018, the Governor signed Senate Bill 1437, which became effective on January 1, 2019. Senate Bill 1437 amended the felony-murder rule and the natural and probable consequences doctrine, as it relates to murder, and added section 1170.95, “which provides a procedure by which those convicted of murder can seek retroactive relief if the changes in the law would affect their previously sustained convictions.” (People v. Gutierrez-Salazar (2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 411, 416-417.)

On April 26, 2019, defendant filed a petition for resentencing pursuant to section 1170.95, alleging that he could not now be convicted of murder because of changes made to sections 188 and 189, effective January 1, 2019. The court summarily denied the petition since defendant was not convicted of murder.

Defendant filed a notice of appeal, in propria persona, appealing the denial of the section 1170.95 petition. We affirm.

ANALYSIS

Defendant appealed and, upon his request, this court appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, setting forth a statement of the case, a summary of the facts, and identifying one potential arguable issue: whether the court erred by summarily denying defendant’s petition. Counsel has also requested this court to undertake a review of the entire record.

We offered the defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which he has not done.

Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have conducted an independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

McKINSTER

J.

We concur:

RAMIREZ

P. J.

RAPHAEL

J.