Filed 7/21/26 P. v. Rivera CA2/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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(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not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE, B346457
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. KA115815)
v.
CHRISTOPHER RYAN
RIVERA,
Defendant and Appellant.
THE COURT:
Defendant and appellant Christopher Ryan Rivera
(defendant) appeals from a postconviction order after
resentencing pursuant to Penal Code1 section 1172.1, subdivision
(a)(1). Defendant’s appointed counsel identified no arguable
issues and filed a brief requesting we exercise our discretion to
conduct an independent review of the record as set forth in People
v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo). Defendant filed
a supplemental brief. We affirm the resentencing order.
1 All further undesignated statutory references are to the
Penal Code.
BACKGROUND
In 2018, defendant was charged with two counts of second
degree robbery (§ 211; counts 1 & 3). It was further alleged
defendant personally used a firearm during the commission of
counts 1 and 3 within the meaning of section 12022.53,
subdivision (b). Finally, the People alleged defendant suffered
two prior serious felony convictions within the meaning of section
667, subdivision (a)(1) and three prior strike convictions pursuant
to the “Three Strikes” law (§§ 667, subd. (b)-(j), 1170.12).
Also in 2018, defendant accepted a negotiated disposition
wherein he pled no contest to counts 1 and 3 and admitted the
firearm allegation pursuant to section 12022.53, subdivision (b).
He admitted he suffered a prior strike conviction and two prior
convictions within the meaning of section 667, subdivision (a).
Defendant was sentenced to an aggregate term of 32 years
comprised of five years in count 1, doubled to 10 years as a second
striker, plus 10 years for the firearm enhancement; and one-third
the midterm in count 3, one year, doubled to two years as a
second striker, plus 10 years for the two 5-year section 667,
subdivision (a)(1) enhancements.
On April 22, 2024, the California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) filed a resentencing
recommendation pursuant to section 1172.1, subdivision (a)(1).
On October 1, 2024, defense counsel filed an accompanying
petition outlining his requested sentence and attached evidence
of his rehabilitation and further education, as well as a statement
of remorse. On April 16, 2025, the People filed an opposition to
any change in defendant’s sentence based on the specific case
factors and defendant’s criminal history.
On May 7, 2025, the court held a hearing on the CDCR’s
resentencing recommendation. The court entertained oral
argument from counsel as well as a statement from defendant.
The court noted it considered the CDCR’s recommendation, the
parties’ briefs and expressed its understanding of the changes in
2
the sentencing laws since the time of defendant’s original
sentencing. The court resentenced defendant to the middle term
on count 1, for a total term of 28 years. The remainder of
defendant’s sentence was unchanged.
Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.
DISCUSSION
Where, as here, appointed counsel finds no arguable issues
in an appeal that is not from the first appeal after conviction, we
are not required to conduct an independent review of the record.
(See Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 226.) However, even if we
do not independently review the record to identify unraised
issues in a case, we give the defendant the opportunity to file his
or her own supplemental brief or letter and we then evaluate any
specific arguments raised. (See id. at p. 232.)
Counsel provided defendant with a copy of the record on
appeal and informed him of his right to file his own supplemental
brief. We notified defendant of counsel’s brief and gave
defendant 30 days to file his own letter or brief stating any
grounds for an appeal, contentions, or arguments he wished to be
considered, and if he did not the appeal would be dismissed.
Defendant filed a supplemental brief within the time
allowed. In it, he asserted the firearm enhancement should be
dismissed because “[t]he ‘gun’ used in both robberies was a ‘toy’
B.B. Gun” rather than a firearm. Defendant’s claim raised for
the first time in this appeal is unavailing. Defendant admitted
the firearm allegation at the time of his 2018 plea. The time to
raise this concern would have been prior to entering his plea or
after requesting and receiving a certificate of probable cause after
his plea (see § 1237.5 [“No appeal shall be taken by the defendant
from a judgment of conviction upon a plea of guilty or nolo
contendere … except where both of the following are met: (a) The
defendant has filed with the trial court a written statement,
executed under oath or penalty of perjury showing reasonable
constitutional, jurisdictional, or other grounds going to the
3
legality of the proceedings [and] (b) The trial court has executed
and filed a certificate of probable cause for such appeal with
the clerk of the court”].) Thus defendant’s belated, self-serving
statement does not undermine the validity of his admission and
plea.
DISPOSITION
The court’s resentencing order is affirmed.
LUI, P. J. CHAVEZ, J. GOORVITCH, J.
4