Filed 8/26/26 P. v. Gonzalez 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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, D086100
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. Nos. SCS268805,
SCS273327)
v.
DANIEL ARCE GONZALEZ,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County.
David J. Danielsen, Judge. (Retired judge if the San Diego Super. Ct.
assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.)
Affirmed.
Lizabeth Weis, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for
Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.
In 2015, a jury convicted David Gonzalez of second degree murder (Pen.
Code,1 § 187) and found he personally discharged a firearm causing death
1 Further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
(§ 12022.53, subd. (a)(1)). Gonzalez admitted he was on bail at the time of
the offense (§ 12022.1, subd. (b)).
Gonzalez pleaded guilty to assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd.
(a)(1)). Gonzalez was sentenced to an indeterminate term of 40 years to life
for the murder conviction with the personal discharge of a firearm. In
addition, the court imposed a determinate term of eight years eight months.
Gonzalez appealed and this court affirmed the convictions but
remanded the case to the trial court so the trial court could reconsider the
sentences in light of changes in the law regarding the firearms enhancement.
(People v. Gonzalez (Mar. 28, 2018, D069533) [nonpub opn.].) The court
modified the opinion in People v. Chavez (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 663. This
court ordered a resentencing hearing.
On remand, the trial court recalled the previous sentence and
conducted a resentencing hearing. The court denied appellant’s request to
reduce the murder offense to manslaughter. The court also denied the
request to dismiss the firearm enhancement. The court ordered the
consecutive determinant terms to be served concurrently thereby reducing
the total sentence to 40 years to life.
Gonzalez filed a timely notice of appeal.
Appellate counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v.
Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo) indicating counsel has not been
able to identify any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel
recognizes the procedures followed in cases controlled by People v. Wende
(1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 are not required in cases such as this but argues the
appellate courts have discretion to conduct an independent review of the
record for error. Counsel urges the court to exercise the discretion granted by
Delgadillo.
2
We advised Gonzalez of his right to file his own brief on appeal.
Gonzalez has responded by filing a lengthy supplemental brief in which he
argues the court misunderstood the law, abused its discretion and lacked
fundamental jurisdiction.
Gonzalez also argues he has a good prison record and should have
received greater relief than that which was granted by the trial court.
On this record, we cannot find that appellant’s multiple complaints, as
detailed in his supplemental brief, identify any arguable issues for reversal
on appeal.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
We discussed the facts of the offense in our previous opinion in case No.
D069533. We will not repeat our review of the facts here.
DISCUSSION
As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a Delgadillo brief and
asks the court to exercise its discretion 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 (Anders), counsel has identified two possible
issues that were considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal:
whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying appellant’s request to
reduce his offense to voluntary manslaughter, and whether the court abused
its discretion by refusing to strike or modify the firearm enhancement.
We have exercised our discretion to independently review the record for
error as required by Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any
arguable issues for reversal on appeal.
3
DISPOSITION
The judgment following resentencing is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, J.*
WE CONCUR:
DATO, Acting P. J.
BERMÚDEZ, 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.
4