Filed 9/3/26 P. v. Marquez 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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,
Plaintiff and Respondent, E086842
v. (Super.Ct.No. RIF1502678)
PAUL EDWARD MARQUEZ JR., OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Joshlyn R. Pulliam,
Judge. Affirmed.
John L. Staley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
1
In this Anders/Wende matter,1 defendant and appellant Paul Edward Marquez, Jr.,
appeals from the trial court’s resentencing decision after the court conducted a full
resentencing hearing under Penal Code section 1172.75. (All further statutory references
are to the Penal Code.) Our independent review of the record and the law discloses no
issues of arguable merit on which to request briefing by the parties. (See People v.
Johnson (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 106, 109 [“an arguable issue” requires “a reasonable
potential for success” on appeal].) We therefore affirm the trial court’s resentencing
ruling.
BACKGROUND
In February 2017, defendant pled guilty to one count of robbery (§ 211) and
admitted several prior convictions. Defendant’s priors included a strike conviction under
the Three Strikes Law, two prior serious felony convictions under section 667,
subdivision (a), and having served two prior prison terms under section 667.5
subdivision (b). Consistent with defendant’s plea terms, the trial court sentenced
defendant to 18 years in prison, as follows: the mid-term of three years for robbery,
doubled to six years for the strike; plus 10 years for two consecutive five-year prior
serious felony terms; plus two consecutive one-year terms for the prison priors.
In December 2023, the trial court in an initial resentencing review under
section 1172.75 dismissed defendant’s two prison priors and continued the matter for a
full resentencing hearing. In July 2025, defendant filed a resentencing brief, along with
1 Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders); People v. Wende (1979) 25
Cal.3d 436 (Wende).
2
accompanying exhibits, in which he requested the court strike the punishment for his two
prior serious felony convictions. Defendant acknowledged numerous prison rule
violations for possessing a manufactured weapon and for fighting, requiring special
housing unit accommodation, which he explained in a confidential filing.
The prosecution in its resentencing memorandum opposed striking defendant’s
prior serious felony convictions or other resentencing relief. Defendant had admitted a
factual basis for his robbery plea, and the prosecutor’s recounting of the underlying facts
indicated that defendant, holding a large pocketknife at waist-level, walked behind the
counter at a convenience store and demanded access to the cash register, which the two
employee victims yielded. Defendant and his accomplice stole $50 from the register.
The trial court declined to further alter defendant’s sentence apart from reducing it
from 18 years to 16 years after striking the prison priors. Addressing defendant at the
hearing, the court acknowledged it did “have discretion to do what your attorney asked”
and it “did consider all of the things that your attorney represented,” but the court
“declined” in its discretion to reduce defendant’s to less than 16 years.
APPEAL AND REVIEW
Following the trial court’s resentencing decision, defendant appealed. This court
appointed appellate counsel. Counsel’s review of the record and legal research
uncovered no arguable issues to raise on appeal, including after consultation with
Appellate Defenders, Inc. In reaching that conclusion, counsel noted one question for our
potential reconsideration in our independent review: Did the trial court abuse its
3
discretion in declining to dismiss for resentencing one or both of defendant’s prior serious
felony convictions? We gave defendant the opportunity to file a supplemental brief
regarding any issues he wanted to raise personally; he did not do so.
Having independently reviewed the record for potential error, we are satisfied
defendant’s attorney has fully complied with the responsibilities of counsel and no issue
of arguable merit exists. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 126; Wende, supra,
25 Cal.3d at pp. 441-442.)
DISPOSITION
The trial court’s resentencing decision is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
LEE
J.
We concur:
McKINSTER
Acting P. J.
MILLER
J.
4