People v. Camarillo CA4/1

• Court: California Court of Appeal
• Decided: November 21, 2025
• Docket: D085384
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Filed 11/21/25 P. v. Camarillo CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, D085384

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. FSB18004347)

JUAN ALBERT CAMARILLO,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Bernardino County, Gregory S. Tavill, Judge. Affirmed. Juan Albert Camarillo, in pro. per.; and John L. Staley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. This appeal is from the denial of a postjudgment petition for

resentencing under Penal Code1 section 1172.1. In February 2024, Juan Albert Camarillo entered into a plea agreement in which Camarillo pleaded guilty to assault on a peace officer

1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code. with a semiautomatic firearm and admitted the firearm enhancement. (§§ 245, subd. (d)(2) & 12022.5, subd. (a).) The parties stipulated to a sentence of 17 years in prison. Camarillo was sentenced in accordance with the plea agreement. In August 2024, Camarillo filed a petition for resentencing under section 1172.1. The court denied the petition. Camarillo filed a timely notice of appeal. Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 indicating counsel has not been able to identify any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. We advised Camarillo of his right to file his own brief on appeal. He has responded by filing a short statement as to why the trial court should have dismissed the enhancement. Camarillo argues the enhancement is invalid because he did not intend to use the firearm. He has not shown any potential abuse of discretion in declining Camarillo’s request to strike the enhancement. Camarillo had admitted it only a few months earlier. Appellate counsel asks the court to exercise its discretion under Delgadillo to independently review the record for error. The conviction was based on a guilty plea and therefore we will not include a statement of facts in this opinion. DISCUSSION As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a Delgadillo brief and asks the court to exercise its discretion to independently review the record for error. We have reviewed the record and have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Camarillo on this appeal.

2 DISPOSITION The order denying Camarillo’s petition for resentencing under section 1172.1 is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, J.*

WE CONCUR:

DO, Acting P. J.

RUBIN, 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. 3