Filed 7/20/26 P. v. Bolanos 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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, D087027
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. INF1700627)
v.
JUAN CARLOS BOLANOS,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Riverside County,
Kristi Hester, Judge. Affirmed.
Juan Carlos Bolanos, in pro. per., and Rachel Varnell, under
appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.
In 2020, a jury convicted Juan Carlos Bolanos of continuous sexual
abuse of a child (Pen. Code1 § 288.5 (count 1)) and three counts of lewd acts
with a child under 14 years of age (§ 288, subd. (a) (counts 2, 3, & 4)).
1 Further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
Bolanos was sentenced to a 16-year term for count 1. The court
imposed concurrent low-term sentences for the remaining counts, and stayed
under section 654.
In 2025, Bolanos filed a petition for resentencing under section 1172.1,
requesting the court to order the Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation to recalculate his custody credits. The court denied the
petition. The court found Bolanos was not entitled to resentencing under
section 1172.1 and that the calculation of custody credits appeared to be
correct.
Bolanos filed a timely notice of appeal and received a certificate of
probable cause.
Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Delgadillo
(2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 indicating counsel has not been able to identify any
arguable issues that would warrant reversal on appeal. Counsel recognizes
the procedure to be followed in People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 is not
applicable to cases falling under the scope of Delgadillo. Counsel does note,
however, that Delgadillo does grant the Court of Appeal the discretion to
conduct an independent review of the record for error. Counsel asks this
court to exercise its discretion to review the record for error as we would do in
a case controlled by Wende.
We advised Bolanos that he could file his own brief on appeal. He has
filed a supplemental brief. We have carefully reviewed Bolanos’s brief, but
we have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal.
In his brief, Bolanos includes a number of legal principles such as the
separation of powers doctrine as applied to the federal and state
constitutions. He includes a variety of materials relating to custody credits
without any arguments that would create an arguable issue for reversal on
2
appeal. The materials and principles Bolanos submits on this record do not
present any potentially meritorious issues in this case.
DISCUSSION
As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People
v. Delgadillo and asks the court to independently review the record for error.
To assist the court in its review and in compliance with Anders v. California
(1967) 386 U.S. 738, counsel has identified a possible issue that was
considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: whether the trial
court erred in denying Bolanos’s petition to recall the sentence.
We have exercised our discretion and have independently reviewed the
record. We have not discovered any potentially meritorious issues for
reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Bolanos in this
appeal.
DISPOSITION
The order denying Bolanos’s petition under section 1172.1 is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, J.
WE CONCUR:
O’ROURKE, Acting P. J.
BERMUDEZ, 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.
3