People v. Marquez CA4/2

Opinion

Filed 9/3/26 P. v. Marquez CA4/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, E086842 v. (Super.Ct.No. RIF1502678)

PAUL EDWARD MARQUEZ JR., OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Joshlyn R. Pulliam, Judge. Affirmed.

John L. Staley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

1 In this Anders/Wende matter,1 defendant and appellant Paul Edward Marquez, Jr., appeals from the trial court’s resentencing decision after the court conducted a full resentencing hearing under Penal Code section 1172.75. (All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.) Our independent review of the record and the law discloses no issues of arguable merit on which to request briefing by the parties. (See People v. Johnson (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 106, 109 [“an arguable issue” requires “a reasonable potential for success” on appeal].) We therefore affirm the trial court’s resentencing ruling.

BACKGROUND

In February 2017, defendant pled guilty to one count of robbery (§ 211) and admitted several prior convictions. Defendant’s priors included a strike conviction under the Three Strikes Law, two prior serious felony convictions under section 667, subdivision (a), and having served two prior prison terms under section 667.5 subdivision (b). Consistent with defendant’s plea terms, the trial court sentenced defendant to 18 years in prison, as follows: the mid-term of three years for robbery, doubled to six years for the strike; plus 10 years for two consecutive five-year prior serious felony terms; plus two consecutive one-year terms for the prison priors.

In December 2023, the trial court in an initial resentencing review under section 1172.75 dismissed defendant’s two prison priors and continued the matter for a full resentencing hearing. In July 2025, defendant filed a resentencing brief, along with 1 Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders); People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).

2 accompanying exhibits, in which he requested the court strike the punishment for his two prior serious felony convictions. Defendant acknowledged numerous prison rule violations for possessing a manufactured weapon and for fighting, requiring special housing unit accommodation, which he explained in a confidential filing.

The prosecution in its resentencing memorandum opposed striking defendant’s prior serious felony convictions or other resentencing relief. Defendant had admitted a factual basis for his robbery plea, and the prosecutor’s recounting of the underlying facts indicated that defendant, holding a large pocketknife at waist-level, walked behind the counter at a convenience store and demanded access to the cash register, which the two employee victims yielded. Defendant and his accomplice stole $50 from the register.

The trial court declined to further alter defendant’s sentence apart from reducing it from 18 years to 16 years after striking the prison priors. Addressing defendant at the hearing, the court acknowledged it did “have discretion to do what your attorney asked”

and it “did consider all of the things that your attorney represented,” but the court “declined” in its discretion to reduce defendant’s to less than 16 years.

APPEAL AND REVIEW

Following the trial court’s resentencing decision, defendant appealed. This court appointed appellate counsel. Counsel’s review of the record and legal research uncovered no arguable issues to raise on appeal, including after consultation with Appellate Defenders, Inc. In reaching that conclusion, counsel noted one question for our potential reconsideration in our independent review: Did the trial court abuse its 3 discretion in declining to dismiss for resentencing one or both of defendant’s prior serious felony convictions? We gave defendant the opportunity to file a supplemental brief regarding any issues he wanted to raise personally; he did not do so.

Having independently reviewed the record for potential error, we are satisfied defendant’s attorney has fully complied with the responsibilities of counsel and no issue of arguable merit exists. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 126; Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pp. 441-442.)

DISPOSITION

The trial court’s resentencing decision is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS LEE J. We concur:

McKINSTER Acting P. J.

MILLER J.