Filed 8/21/25 P. v. Bonanno CA4/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RICHARD SCOTT BONANNO, Defendant and Appellant. |
G064697 (Super. Ct. No. 15NF2257) O P I N I O N |
|---|
Appeal from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Andre Manssourian, Judge. Affirmed.
Richard Scott Bonanno, in pro. per.; John L. Staley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.
Richard Scott Bonanno filed a petition for resentencing pursuant to Penal Code sections 1170, subdivision (d)(1) and 1172.1 through 1172.75, which was denied by the trial court.1 Within this petition, Bonanno also requested resentencing, pursuant to section 1172.6, which the trial court denied without prejudice.
Bonanno appealed. Appointed counsel for Bonanno filed a brief pursuant to People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 and requested this court conduct an independent review of the entire record. Acknowledging Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, appellate counsel identified an issue to assist us in our review. Bonanno filed a supplemental brief on his own behalf.
Following People v. Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at page 232, we examined the entire record as well as Bonanno’s supplemental brief and find no reasonably arguable issue. We therefore affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In June 2018, Bonanno pleaded guilty to assault with a firearm (§ 245, subd. (a)(1); count 3) and attempted murder (§§ 664, subd. (a) & 187, subd. (a); count 5). As to the attempted murder charge, Bonanno admitted to personally using a firearm (§ 12022.5, subd. (a)) and committing the attempted murder for the benefit of, or in association with, a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(4)). Bonanno also admitted to having suffered six prior “strike” convictions within the meaning of sections 667, subdivisions (d) and (e)(2)(A) and 1170.12, subdivisions (b) and (c)(2)(A)2 and to having suffered two prior serious/violent felony convictions under section 667, subdivision (a)(1). At sentencing, the trial court exercised its discretion under section 1385, subdivision (a) and struck Bonanno’s strike priors. The court imposed a total term of 22 years in state prison.
In April 2024, Bonanno filed a “Request for recall and resentencing under [Assembly Bill No. 600 (2023–2024 Reg. Sess.)] and [section] 1172.1,” which the trial court denied via minute order.3 In its minute order, the court noted, “‘A defendant is not entitled to file a petition seeking relief from the court under [section 1172.1]. If a defendant requests consideration for relief under this section, the court is not required to respond.’”
In June 2024, Bonanno filed a “Petition for Resentencing ‘Ex-Parte’” with attachments (June 2024 petition). In August and September 2024, he filed a request for ruling on the June 2024 petition. The trial court denied Bonanno’s June 2024 petition in September 2024. In its minute order, the court indicated Bonanno was ineligible for relief on the grounds requested in his petition. The court also denied Bonanno’s request for resentencing pursuant to section 1172.6 without prejudice. Bonanno appealed.
DISCUSSION
Bonanno’s appellate counsel suggests we consider whether the trial court erred by denying Bonanno’s June 2024 petition.4 Bonanno expands on this issue citing to People v. Frazier (2020) 55 Cal.App.5th 8585 and argues the court erred by denying him “the right to present additional evidence before the court ruled after receiving a recommendation by [the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation].” (Capitalization omitted.) In his supplemental brief, Bonanno also argues the court erred by failing to follow the procedures set forth in sections 1172.1 and 1170, subdivision (d)(1) by not appointing counsel and by not “set[ting] a status conference within 30 days” after the court’s receipt of his June 2024 petition.
Bonanno’s arguments presume one fact absent from our record—that the trial court was in receipt of a recommendation for Bonanno’s resentencing as required by section 1172.1. Most applicable here, section 1172.1 provides for the recall and resentencing of a state prison inmate upon the court’s own motion “within 120 days of the date of commitment or at any time if the applicable sentencing laws at the time of original sentencing are subsequently changed by new statutory authority or case law, [or] at any time upon the recommendation of the secretary or the Board of Parole Hearings in the case of a defendant incarcerated in state prison.”
Although Bonanno attached, inter alia, letters from Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation employees in support of his June 2024 petition, the trial court correctly noted that petition was not based on a recommendation from the Secretary of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Under section 1172.1, subdivision (c), Bonanno is not entitled himself “to file a petition seeking relief from the court under this section.”
Bonanno additionally contends in his supplemental brief the trial court erred by failing to “strike a[n] invalid or unauthorized enhancement illegally imposed pursuant to [section] 667[, subdivision] (a)(1).” (Capitalization omitted.) In his supplemental brief, Bonanno asks this court to “‘strike’” the 10 years he received for his prior serious/violent convictions alleged pursuant to section 667, subdivision (a)(1) and the four years imposed pursuant to section 12022.5, subdivision (a). We cannot do so. While the authority to do so may be available when the trial court exercises its discretion to recall and resentence under section 1172.1, subdivision (a)(1), any discussion of it here is immaterial. Bonanno was correctly found ineligible for resentencing, so no opportunity arose for the sentencing court to consider striking or dismissing these prior convictions or the enhancement.6 We have otherwise reviewed the entire appellate record and have found no reasonably arguable issue.
In light of our finding there is no reasonably arguable issue, we need not address Bonanno’s final argument he received ineffective assistance of counsel on appeal.
DISPOSITION
The postjudgment order denying Bonanno’s petition is affirmed.
MOTOIKE, ACTING P. J.
WE CONCUR:
MOORE, J.
SANCHEZ, J.
-
All further statutory references are to this code. ↩︎
-
Although not relevant to this appeal, the plea form signed by Bonanno indicates an admission to having suffered only two of the six prior strike offenses, yet the trial court minutes reflect admissions as to all six. ↩︎
-
The trial court minutes show this request was filed in April 2024, but a copy of this request is not in our record. ↩︎
-
Since the trial court denied without prejudice Bonanno’s request for resentencing pursuant to section 1172.6, and Bonanno does not discuss this order in his supplemental brief, we do not address this aspect of his petition on appeal. ↩︎
-
We assume Bonanno, through inadvertence, incorrectly cited to People v. Frazier with a page cite of 202. ↩︎
-
Although we do note the trial court denied without prejudice Bonanno’s petition for resentencing under section 1172.6. ↩︎