People v. Salas CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D086061 · 2026-04-24 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from a judgment
Trial court: Superior Court of San Bernardino County · No. FSB18002597
Trial judge: Ronald M. Christianson
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed.
Area: criminal
Panel: Judith D. McConnell (author), Truc T. Do

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T03:25Z · confidence low

The trial court resentenced Salas by striking the five-year prior strike enhancement and reducing the sentence on count 2, but denied his motion to strike the prior serious felony under *Romero* and maintained the 25-year-to-life firearm enhancement on count 1. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment after an independent *Wende* review found no reasonably arguable issues.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of motion to strike prior serious or violent felony conviction under People v. Superior Court (Romero) “The trial court, however, (1) struck the five year term for the prior strike conviction under the Three Strikes law (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)); (2) reduced the upper term sentence on count 2 to the middle term of three years, doubled due to the strike prior, which it stayed; and (3) reimposed (i) the restitution fine of $300, less any payments that Salas already had made, and (ii) the matching parole revocation fine, which it stayed.”	unclear	not reached	unsure The appellate court conducted an independent review under Wende and Anders and concluded that no reasonably arguable issues existed for reversal, thereby affirming the judgment without specifically analyzing the trial court's Romero decision on the merits.
Imposition of consecutive 25 years to life term for firearm enhancement on count 1 “whether the trial court erred when it: (1) imposed the consecutive sentence of 25 years to life on count 1 (see § 12022.53, subd. (d)), rather than a lesser sentence for a lesser charged or uncharged firearm enhancement;”	unclear	not reached	unsure The appellate court identified this as one of four issues considered by counsel but ultimately found no arguable issues for reversal during its independent review of the record.
Imposition of middle term on count 2 “(3) imposed the middle and not the low term on count 2;”	unclear	not reached	unsure The appellate court noted this issue was considered by counsel but found no arguable issues for reversal upon independent review.
Requirement to serve at least 14 years before parole eligibility “(4) required him to serve a term of at least 14 years before becoming eligible for parole.”	unclear	not reached	unsure The appellate court listed this as an issue considered by counsel but affirmed the judgment after finding no arguable issues in the record.

Authorities

relied: People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 — Establishes the discretionary framework for striking prior serious or violent felony convictions under the Three Strikes law.
relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appellate courts to independently review the record when appointed counsel files a brief raising no issues but seeking independent review.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Requires appointed counsel to file a brief identifying any arguable issues and requesting independent review by the court.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly applies the *Wende* and *Anders* framework for independent review when counsel raises no issues. However, it provides no substantive legal analysis for the specific sentencing rulings, relying entirely on the conclusion that no arguable issues exist in the record.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

unusual disposition

A model's reading — claude-fable-5-1, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:01Z · confidence low

On remand after a prior reversal of sentence, the trial court resentenced Salas for premeditated attempted murder and assault with a deadly weapon, denying his Romero motion to strike his prior strike but striking the five-year section 667(a)(1) enhancement, reducing count 2 to the middle term, and reimposing fines. Appointed counsel filed a Wende/Anders brief identifying four possible issues, Salas filed no supplemental brief, and the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issues, and affirmed.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of Salas's motion under section 1385 and Romero to strike his prior serious or violent felony (strike) conviction at resentencing “the trial court denied Salas’s motion to strike the prior serious or violent felony conviction, finding he “continues to be a danger to public safety based on the prior record and the current case.””	unclear	correct	agree with court The opinion does not state a standard, but denial of a Romero motion is reviewed for abuse of discretion. The trial court expressly recognized its discretion under sections 1385 and 12022.53(h), considered Salas's prison programming, and gave record-based reasons: 2016 convictions for robbery and assault by force likely to produce great bodily injury resulting in prison terms, commission of the current shooting shortly after release, and the aggravated nature of the offense (returning to shoot a wounded victim three more times). On this record a finding that striking the strike would endanger public safety under section 1385(c)(2) is well within discretion.
Imposition of the consecutive 25-years-to-life firearm enhancement under section 12022.53(d) on count 1 rather than striking it or substituting a lesser charged or uncharged firearm enhancement “imposed the consecutive sentence of 25 years to life on count 1 (see § 12022.53, subd. (d)), rather than a lesser sentence for a lesser charged or uncharged firearm enhancement”	unclear	correct	agree with court The court does not discuss this issue beyond listing it as one counsel considered; the standard would be abuse of discretion under section 12022.53(h) and section 1385. The record described (trial court's acknowledgment of its new discretion under section 12022.53(h), its public-safety finding, and the facts that the jury found true the (b), (c), and (d) allegations) supports a conclusion that no arguable error exists, though the opinion does not articulate why. The result is defensible but the reasoning is skeletal, as is typical of Wende dispositions.
Selection of the middle term (three years, doubled) rather than the low term on count 2, assault with a deadly weapon, stayed “reduced the upper term sentence on count 2 to the middle term of three years, doubled due to the strike prior, which it stayed”	unclear	correct	agree with court Term selection is reviewed for abuse of discretion. The trial court reduced the previously imposed upper term to the middle term, consistent with amended section 1170(b), and the term is stayed in any event, so any error would have no practical effect on time served. The opinion does not explain its conclusion, but nothing in the described record suggests a mandatory low-term circumstance under section 1170(b)(6) was raised or shown.
Requirement that Salas serve a minimum of 14 years on the life term for premeditated attempted murder before parole eligibility “required him to serve a term of at least 14 years before becoming eligible for parole.”	unclear	correct	agree with court This is a question of law reviewed de novo. Premeditated attempted murder carries life with the possibility of parole with a seven-year minimum parole eligibility period under section 3046, and the Three Strikes law (section 667(e)(1) / 1170.12(c)(1)) doubles that minimum to 14 years for a defendant with one prior strike. The 14-year figure therefore appears lawful on the record described, although the opinion does not walk through the calculation.
The resentencing judgment as a whole, reviewed independently under Wende and Anders “We reviewed the entire record as required by Wende and Anders and discovered no arguable issues for reversal on appeal.”	unclear	correct	agree with court The court followed the Wende procedure: counsel filed a no-issue brief identifying possible issues, the defendant was notified and did not file a supplemental brief, and the court conducted an independent review. The opinion briefly recites the procedural history and the resentencing choices, which satisfies the minimal content requirements for a Wende opinion. Nothing in the described record points to an unaddressed arguable issue.

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — When appointed appellate counsel finds no arguable issues, the Court of Appeal must independently review the entire record for arguable error before affirming.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds an appeal wholly frivolous may so advise the court and request to withdraw, accompanied by a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal.
relied: People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 — A trial court has discretion under section 1385 to strike a prior serious or violent felony conviction allegation under the Three Strikes law in furtherance of justice.
missed: People v. Carmony (2004) 33 Cal.4th 367 — A trial court's refusal to strike a prior strike under section 1385 is reviewed for abuse of discretion, and the defendant bears the burden of showing the decision was irrational or arbitrary; the court should have identified this standard when treating the Romero denial as non-arguable.
missed: People v. Tirado (2022) 12 Cal.5th 688 — Under section 12022.53(h) and section 1385, a trial court that strikes a section 12022.53(d) enhancement may impose a lesser uncharged enhancement under subdivision (b) or (c) if the facts supporting it were alleged and found true; this authority frames counsel's first identified issue and the opinion did not address it.
relied: People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106 — A Wende opinion should briefly describe the facts and procedural history, the crimes of which the defendant was convicted, the punishment imposed, and the issues counsel or the defendant raised; the opinion follows this format though it does not cite Kelly.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The court properly applied the Wende/Anders procedure and reached a defensible result; the resentencing record it describes (express recognition of new discretion, public-safety finding grounded in prior robbery and assault convictions and the aggravated shooting) supports affirmance. The opinion, however, does not state the governing standards or address Carmony, Tirado, or the section 3046 parole-minimum calculation when disposing of the four issues counsel flagged, leaving the reasoning conclusory even by Wende standards.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 4/24/26 P. v. Salas 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, D086061

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. FSB18002597)

ENRIQUE FRAUSTO SALAS,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Bernardino County, Ronald M. Christianson, Judge. Affirmed. Marcia R. Clark, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. INTRODUCTION In March 2019, a jury convicted Enrique Frausto Salas of premeditated attempted murder (Pen. Code,1 §§ 187, subd. (a) & 664; count 1) and of assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(2); count 2). It also found true 1 All undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. that Salas, in committing these offenses against Christopher D., (1) personally used a firearm (§ 12022.53, subd. (b)); (2) personally and intentionally discharged a firearm (id., subd. (c)); (3) intentionally discharged a firearm causing great bodily injury (id., subd. (d)); (4) inflicted great bodily injury (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)); and in a bifurcated trial, (5) suffered a prior serious felony (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)).2 At Salas’s sentencing in December 2020, as to count 1 the trial court imposed (1) the indeterminate term of life imprisonment with a minimum parole eligibility of 14 years, plus a consecutive term of 25 years to life for the firearm allegation (§ 12022.53, subd. (d)); and (2) stayed the (i) upper term of three years on the great bodily injury allegation (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)) and (ii) additional terms for the remaining firearm enhancements (§ 12022.53, subds. (b) & (c)). As to count 2, the trial court imposed and stayed (1) the upper term of four years (§ 245, subd. (a)(2)), doubled due to the strike prior; and (2) the terms of three and 10 years for the great bodily injury (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)) and firearm (§ 12022.5, subd. (a)) enhancements, respectively. Finally, the trial court (1) imposed a consecutive five year term for Salas’s prior strike conviction (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)); (2) struck the one year prior prison enhancement (§ 1170.12, subd., (c)(1)); and (3) imposed a (i) $300 restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)(1)) and (ii) matching $300 parole revocation fine (§ 1202.45, subd. (a)).

2 The jury, however, did not reach a verdict on the gang enhancement (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(C)) as to counts 1 and 2. In response to the prosecution’s motion, the trial court dismissed the gang enhancement in the interest of justice.

2 In April 2023, we reversed Salas’s sentence and remanded the cause for resentencing based on the new sentencing laws enacted by the Legislature following his original sentencing. (See People v. Salas (Apr. 20, 2023, D078838) [nonpub. opn.] (Salas I).)3 Salas now appeals from his resentencing. His court-appointed counsel filed a brief raising no issues but seeking our independent review of the record under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders). We informed Salas of his right to file a supplemental brief but he did not respond. Based on our independent review of the record, as supplemented, we find no reasonably arguable appellate issues and affirm the judgment.

STATEMENT OF FACTS4 In the afternoon of July 7, 2018, Christopher D., a known gang member, was outside a mobile home park in Yucaipa, California. Salas, a member of a rival gang, walked across the street and shot Christopher D. three times. (Salas I, D078838.) Christopher D. fell, then stood back up. Salas, identified as the shooter by multiple witnesses, then ran back to the middle of the street and shot Christopher D. three more times, leaving him paralyzed from the waist down. RESENTENCING After multiple continuances, the trial court conducted Salas’s resentencing hearing on April 15, 2025. In preparation for the hearing, it reviewed the parties’ briefs and re-reviewed “the court file, including the 3 On our own motion, we take judicial notice of this court’s prior opinion in Salas I. (See Evid. Code, §§ 452, subd. (d) & 459, subd. (a).)

4 A full summary of the facts of this case is set out in Salas I, D078838.

3 court of appeal opinion [in Salas I] and the probation report originally dated April 24th, 2019.” The court recognized the discretion “it now has that it didn’t have at the prior sentencing” under sections 1385 and 12022.53, subdivision (h); and commended Salas for his efforts while incarcerated, including taking advantage of various prison programs. After hearing the argument of counsel, the trial court denied Salas’s motion to strike the prior serious or violent felony conviction, finding he “continues to be a danger to public safety based on the prior record and the current case.” (See § 1385, subd. (c)(2); People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 (Romero).) In reaching its decision, the court noted Salas had prior convictions from 2016 in separate cases for robbery and assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury, which resulted in prison terms; and shortly after his release from prison, he committed the current offenses, where he initially shot the victim three times and “when he saw the victim was still alive and was able to move, he advanced and shot him three more times.” The trial court, however, (1) struck the five year term for the prior strike conviction under the Three Strikes law (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)); (2) reduced the upper term sentence on count 2 to the middle term of three years, doubled due to the strike prior, which it stayed; and (3) reimposed (i) the restitution fine of $300, less any payments that Salas already had made, and (ii) the matching parole revocation fine, which it stayed. DISCUSSION As stated, Salas’s counsel filed a Wende brief setting forth a statement of the case and facts, urging no grounds for reversal, and asking us to review independently the record for error. To assist our review under Anders, supra, 386 U.S. at pp. 744–745, counsel identified four issues she considered in 4 evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: whether the trial court erred when it: (1) imposed the consecutive sentence of 25 years to life on count 1 (see § 12022.53, subd. (d)), rather than a lesser sentence for a lesser charged or uncharged firearm enhancement; (2) denied Salas’s request to strike his prior strike under Romero, supra, 13 Cal.4th 497; (3) imposed the middle and not the low term on count 2; and (4) required him to serve a term of at least 14 years before becoming eligible for parole. We reviewed the entire record as required by Wende and Anders and discovered no arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Salas in this appeal. DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

MCCONNELL, P. J.

WE CONCUR:

DO, J.

HUFFMAN, 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. 5

Cites, in this corpus

People v. Superior Court (Romero) S045097 · 1996-06-20
People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12