The People v. Fontenot

Full title: THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JOSE LUIS FONTENOT, Defendant and…

Court: California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, First Division

Date published: Jul 18, 2023

No. D081367 (Cal. Ct. App. Jul. 18, 2023)

Opinion

D081367

07-18-2023

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JOSE LUIS FONTENOT, Defendant and Appellant.

Jose Luis Fontenot, in pro. per.; and Patricia L. Brisbois, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

HUFFMAN, ACTING P. J.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Bernardino County No. FBA1100269, Lisa M. Rogan, Judge. Affirmed.

Jose Luis Fontenot, in pro. per.; and Patricia L. Brisbois, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

HUFFMAN, ACTING P. J.

In 2017, a jury convicted Jose Luis Fontenot of one count of first degree murder committed in 2011 and a second degree murder committed in 2009. (Pen. Code,¹ § 187, subd. (a).) The jury also found true a multiple murder enhancement (§ 190, subd. (a)(3)), and related firearms enhancement (§ 12022.53, subds. (b), (c), and (d).) Fontenot was sentenced to life without parole for count 1 plus 15 years to life for second degree murder and two consecutive 25 year to life terms for the two firearm enhancements.

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.

In 2022, Fontenot filed a petition for resentencing under section 1172.6. The court appointed counsel, reviewed the record of conviction, and held a hearing. The trial court found the record demonstrated Fontenot was the actual killer in both cases. Thus, the court found Fontenot was not eligible for relief under the statute as a matter of law. The petition for resentencing was denied without issuing an order to show cause.

Fontenot filed a timely notice of appeal.

Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo), indicating counsel has not been able to identify any potentially meritorious issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks the court to exercise its discretion and conduct an independent review of the record for error consistent with People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). We notified Fontenot of his right to file his own brief on appeal. He has responded with a rambling discussion of his various complaints about the system and that he has not been treated fairly in his contacts with the criminal justice system. He does not raise any potentially meritorious issues for reversal on appeal.²

2 The facts of the two murder convictions are discussed in our unpublished opinion. (People v. Fontenot (Jan. 14, 2019, D074575).)

DISCUSSION

As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Delgadillo and asks the court to conduct a Wende review of the record for error. To assist the court in its review, and in compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), counsel has identified two possible issues that were considered in evaluating the potential meris of this appeal:

1. Did the trial court err in denying the petition for resentencing since the prosecutor did not file a written response to the petition?

2. Did the court err in denying the petition without citing to specific sections of the record supporting that decision?

We have independently reviewed the record consistent with the requirements of Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any potentially meritorious issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Fontenot on this appeal.

DISPOSITION

The order denying Fontenot's petition for resentencing under section 1172.6 is affirmed.

WE CONCUR: O'ROURKE, J., RUBIN, J.