People v. Zuniga CA4/2

Opinion

Filed 3/21/25 P. v. Zuniga 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, E084677

v. (Super.Ct.No. BAF1500731)

GABRIEL AMBROSIO ZUNIGA, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Charles J. Koosed, Judge.

Dismissed.

Andrea S. Bitar, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and

Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

1 On July 7, 2016, a jury found defendant and appellant Gabriel Ambrosio Zuniga

guilty of willfully inflicting corporal injury on a cohabitant (Pen. Code,1 § 273.5, count 1)

and violating a protective order (§ 166, subd. (c)(1), count 2).2 Defendant thereafter

admitted he had suffered five prior prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)) and two prior strike

convictions (§§ 667, subds. (c) & (e)(2)(A), 1170.12, subd. (c)(2)(a)). The court

sentenced defendant to state prison for 10 years;3 the court struck one of the five prior

prison term enhancements. (People v. Zuniga (May 4, 2018, E066918) [nonpub. opn.]

(Zuniga).)

Defendant appealed. This court affirmed the judgment. (Zuniga, supra,

E066918.) On October 27, 2023, pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, the court recalled

defendant’s sentence and resentenced him to six years striking the four remaining prior

prison term enhancements.

The court later set a hearing for resentencing pursuant to a letter received from the

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Defense counsel filed a brief

requesting that the court strike both prior strike convictions. The People filed opposition

noting, in part, that defendant had already been released from prison. On August 26,

1 All further statutory references will be to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.

2 The court also found defendant in violation of his probation in two separate cases based upon the jury’s verdict.

3 The court denied defendant’s motion to strike one of his prior strike convictions.

2 2024, at a hearing at which counsel represented defendant, the court denied the request

for resentencing.

Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Delgadillo (2022)

14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo), setting forth a statement of the case and identifying one

potentially arguable issue: whether the court erred in declining to strike defendant’s prior

strike convictions.

We gave defendant the opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief. We

noted that if he did not do so, we could dismiss the appeal; nevertheless, he has not filed

one. Under these circumstances, we have no obligation to independently review the

record for error. (Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at pp. 224-231.) Rather, we dismiss the

appeal. (Id. at pp. 231-232.)

DISPOSITION

The appeal is dismissed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

McKINSTER Acting P. J.

We concur:

FIELDS J.

RAPHAEL J.