People v. Ruiz CA2/4

Filed 10/19/20 P. v. Ruiz CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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(a). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115(a). IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR THE PEOPLE, B301477 Plaintiff and Respondent, Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA232116 v. ANTHONY RUIZ, Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Robert J. Perry, Judge. Dismissed. Juliana Drous, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND1 A jury convicted defendant and appellant Anthony Ruiz of first degree murder. (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a).)2 The jury also found true the special circumstance allegation that the murder was committed by discharging a firearm at another person from a motor vehicle with the intent to kill. (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(21).) The jury found Ruiz guilty of three counts of first degree attempted murder (§§ 664, 187, subd. (a)) and found various gang enhancement allegations not true. The trial court sentenced him to life without the possibility of parole for the murder and three consecutive life terms for the attempted murders. On direct appeal from that judgment, Ruiz argued substantial evidence did not support the murder conviction, the special circumstance allegation, and the attempted murder convictions because there was insufficient proof Ruiz harbored the intent to kill. This court rejected Ruiz’s arguments and affirmed the judgment, concluding “[t]he evidence clearly showed a deliberate, planned attack on the victims.” In 2019, Ruiz filed a petition for resentencing under section 1170.95. The trial court summarily denied the petition, explaining “[t]he facts of the case clearly showed [Ruiz] acted with an intent to kill and as a major participant[,]” and noting this court “specifically rejected Ruiz’[s] argument that he did not act with an intent to kill.” 1 We take judicial notice of our opinion in case number B173153, filed April 21, 2005, resolving Ruiz’s direct appeal. (See Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (a).) 2 All undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. 2 Ruiz filed a timely notice of appeal, and we appointed counsel to represent him. We granted Ruiz’s motion that we take judicial notice of the record from his direct appeal. On April 1, 2020, appellate counsel filed a brief raising no issues and asking us to review the record independently for arguable issues. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Ruiz did not respond to our letter advising him of his right to file supplemental briefing. This court “has no independent duty to review the record for reasonably arguable issues. [Citation.]” (People v. Cole (2020) 52 Cal.App.5th 1023, 1039.) We dismiss Ruiz’s appeal as abandoned. (Id. at p. 1040.) DISPOSITION The appeal is dismissed. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORT CURREY, J. We concur: WILLHITE, Acting P.J. COLLINS, J. 3