Filed 1/24/20 P. v. Gonzales 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

JESSE GONZALES, JR.,

Defendant and Appellant.

B299508

(Los Angeles County

Super. Ct. No. A651320)

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, John J. Lonergan, Jr., Judge. Affirmed.

Lenore De Vita, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

____________________

In 1989, Jesse Gonzales, Jr. was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to prison for 25 years to life. We affirmed his conviction.

In 2019, section 1170.95 (section 1170.95) was added to the Penal Code. (Stats. 2018, ch. 1015, § 4.) It provides: “A person convicted of felony murder or murder under a natural and probable consequences theory may file a petition with the court that sentenced the petitioner to have the petitioner’s murder conviction vacated and to be resentenced on any remaining counts when all of the following conditions apply:

“(1) A complaint, information, or indictment was filed against the petitioner that allowed the prosecution to proceed under a theory of felony murder or murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine.

“(2) The petitioner was convicted of first degree or second degree murder following a trial or accepted a plea offer in lieu of a trial at which the petitioner could be convicted for first degree or second degree murder.

“(3) The petitioner could not be convicted of first or second degree murder because of changes to Section 188 or 189 made effective January 1, 2019.” (§ 1170.95, subd. (a).)

On April 12, 2019, Gonzales filed a petition for resentencing under section 1170.95. The People filed opposition, claiming Gonzales was ineligible for resentencing under section 1170.95 because he was the actual killer. In support of the opposition, the People submitted a copy of our prior opinion, in which we stated that Gonzales stabbed the victim.

The trial court summarily denied the petition. It found Gonzales “failed to make a prima facie showing that he falls within the provisions of this section. [Gonzales] was the actual killer, rendering him ineligible for section 1170.95 resentencing.” Gonzales timely appealed.

We appointed counsel to represent Gonzales on this appeal. After review of the record, Gonzales’s counsel filed an opening brief requesting this court to independently review the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441. On December 3, 2019, we sent a letter to Gonzales, advising him that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues which he wished us to consider. We received no response.

We have examined the entire record. We are satisfied that no arguable legal issues exist and that Gonzales’s counsel has fully complied with her responsibilities. By virtue of counsel’s compliance with the Wende procedure and our review of the record, we are satisfied that Gonzales received adequate and effective appellate review of the order entered against him in this case. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441; accord, People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 109-110.)

DISPOSITION

The order is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

JOHNSON, J.

We concur:

ROTHSCHILD, P. J.

WEINGART, J.*