People v. Amaya CA4/2

Opinion

Filed 9/9/26 P. v. Amaya CA4/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, E086640 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super.Ct.No. FSB1200161) v. OPINION ROBERT STEVEN AMAYA, Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Michael A. Smith, Judge. (Retired judge of the San Bernardino Super. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Affirmed.

Rex Adam Williams, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

1 In August 2025 the trial court resentenced Robert Steven Amaya under Penal Code section 1172.75.1 Amaya appealed. His attorney filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and Anders v. California (1967)

386 U.S. 738 informing this court they were unable to identify any errors and asking us to perform an independent review of the record. We affirm.

BACKGROUND

In May 2012 a jury convicted Amaya of three counts of second degree robbery (§ 211), one count of attempted second degree robbery (§§ 664, 211), one count of making criminal threats (§ 422) and one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm (former § 12021). The court sentenced Amaya to 25 years to life for all counts but stayed the imposition of the sentence for the last two for a total indeterminate term of 100 years- to-life. On top of that, the court added a consecutive determinate term of 64 years, comprised of 10-year firearm enhancements and five-year prior serious felony enhancements for each unstayed count plus four one-year prior prison term enhancements.

In 2014 this court reversed the true finding on the firearm enhancement for count 5. In 2017 the trial court modified one of the stayed indeterminate terms to a determinate term under section 1170.126. Neither change affected the aggregate sentence.

1 Unlabeled statutory citations refer to the Penal Code.

2 In January 2024 the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) identified Amaya as a person serving a sentence which contained a now invalid enhancement, as required under section 1172.75.2 In August 2025 the court recalled Amaya’s sentence per section 1172.75 and resentenced him. In addition to striking the four one-year prison prior enhancements imposed under section 667.5, subdivision (b), the court also eliminated the five-year enhancements on each count and changed the sentence on all but three counts to run concurrent. This modified Amaya’s total aggregate term to 75 years to life plus 30 years.

DISCUSSION

We appointed counsel to represent Amaya on appeal, and counsel filed a brief setting forth a statement of the case and a summary of the facts and asking us to conduct an independent review of the record. We offered Amaya an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, and he did so, arguing he was not afforded a full resentencing and requesting further assistance from his appellate counsel.

We disagree with Amaya’s contention that he did not receive a full resentencing.

Quite the opposite, the court discretionarily reduced Amaya’s sentence by changing one 25-to-life term and its attached 10-year enhancement from consecutive to concurrent and striking four five-year enhancements in addition to the four one-year prior prison term 2 Section 1172.75 requires this information to have been provided no later than December 31, 2023. Amaya did not object to this seeming delay in the trial court, he does not object here, and any delay does not appear to have prejudiced Amaya, so we merely note the discrepancy.

3 enhancements it was obligated to strike. This was a full resentencing where the court exercised its discretion, contrary to Amaya’s assertion otherwise.

Amaya’s concerns about his representation on appeal do not appear warranted. He complains that he “not only has to brief the supplemental issues himself to the Court, but also has to get around the ‘arguments’ set forth by appellant’s own appellate attorney, who is blatantly briefing his Wende issues as a ‘surrogate prosecutor,’ ” and arguing against him rather than assisting him “in any way.” He expresses his belief that counsel is “misleading the court by describing appellant’s initial collateral attack on his sentence/conviction, as anything but a postconviction collateral attack on a conviction.”

However, he fails to specify anything in the record that supports these assertions and we have not found anything that would tend to support them.

Having independently reviewed the record for potential error and finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to Amaya, we affirm the trial court.

DISPOSITION

We affirm the judgment.

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

RAMIREZ P. J.

MENETREZ J.