Filed 9/9/26 P. v. Amaya 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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,
E086640
Plaintiff and Respondent,
(Super.Ct.No. FSB1200161)
v.
OPINION
ROBERT STEVEN AMAYA,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Michael A. Smith,
Judge. (Retired judge of the San Bernardino Super. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice
pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Affirmed.
Rex Adam Williams, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant
and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
1
In August 2025 the trial court resentenced Robert Steven Amaya under Penal
Code section 1172.75.1 Amaya appealed. His attorney filed a brief under the authority
of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and Anders v. California (1967)
386 U.S. 738 informing this court they were unable to identify any errors and asking us to
perform an independent review of the record. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
In May 2012 a jury convicted Amaya of three counts of second degree robbery
(§ 211), one count of attempted second degree robbery (§§ 664, 211), one count of
making criminal threats (§ 422) and one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm
(former § 12021). The court sentenced Amaya to 25 years to life for all counts but stayed
the imposition of the sentence for the last two for a total indeterminate term of 100 years-
to-life. On top of that, the court added a consecutive determinate term of 64 years,
comprised of 10-year firearm enhancements and five-year prior serious felony
enhancements for each unstayed count plus four one-year prior prison term
enhancements.
In 2014 this court reversed the true finding on the firearm enhancement for
count 5. In 2017 the trial court modified one of the stayed indeterminate terms to a
determinate term under section 1170.126. Neither change affected the aggregate
sentence.
1 Unlabeled statutory citations refer to the Penal Code.
2
In January 2024 the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
(CDCR) identified Amaya as a person serving a sentence which contained a now invalid
enhancement, as required under section 1172.75.2 In August 2025 the court recalled
Amaya’s sentence per section 1172.75 and resentenced him. In addition to striking the
four one-year prison prior enhancements imposed under section 667.5, subdivision (b),
the court also eliminated the five-year enhancements on each count and changed the
sentence on all but three counts to run concurrent. This modified Amaya’s total
aggregate term to 75 years to life plus 30 years.
DISCUSSION
We appointed counsel to represent Amaya on appeal, and counsel filed a brief
setting forth a statement of the case and a summary of the facts and asking us to conduct
an independent review of the record. We offered Amaya an opportunity to file a personal
supplemental brief, and he did so, arguing he was not afforded a full resentencing and
requesting further assistance from his appellate counsel.
We disagree with Amaya’s contention that he did not receive a full resentencing.
Quite the opposite, the court discretionarily reduced Amaya’s sentence by changing one
25-to-life term and its attached 10-year enhancement from consecutive to concurrent and
striking four five-year enhancements in addition to the four one-year prior prison term
2 Section 1172.75 requires this information to have been provided no later than
December 31, 2023. Amaya did not object to this seeming delay in the trial court, he
does not object here, and any delay does not appear to have prejudiced Amaya, so we
merely note the discrepancy.
3
enhancements it was obligated to strike. This was a full resentencing where the court
exercised its discretion, contrary to Amaya’s assertion otherwise.
Amaya’s concerns about his representation on appeal do not appear warranted. He
complains that he “not only has to brief the supplemental issues himself to the Court, but
also has to get around the ‘arguments’ set forth by appellant’s own appellate attorney,
who is blatantly briefing his Wende issues as a ‘surrogate prosecutor,’ ” and arguing
against him rather than assisting him “in any way.” He expresses his belief that counsel
is “misleading the court by describing appellant’s initial collateral attack on his
sentence/conviction, as anything but a postconviction collateral attack on a conviction.”
However, he fails to specify anything in the record that supports these assertions and we
have not found anything that would tend to support them.
Having independently reviewed the record for potential error and finding no
arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to Amaya, we affirm the
trial court.
DISPOSITION
We affirm the judgment.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
RAPHAEL
J.
We concur:
RAMIREZ
P. J.
MENETREZ
J.
4
