The opinion
Filed 9/24/25 P. v. Brown CA2/6
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIX
THE PEOPLE, 2d Crim. No. B340073
(Super. Ct. No. BA290213-01)
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County)
v.
FREDERICO BROWN,
Defendant and Appellant.
Frederico Brown (also known as “Federico”) appeals the
trial court’s order denying his petition for resentencing pursuant
to Penal Code section 1172.75.1 We appointed counsel to
represent appellant on appeal. After an examination of the
record, counsel filed an opening brief raising no issues and
requesting that we follow the procedures set forth in People v.
Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo). Appellant filed a
supplemental brief raising no arguable issues. We affirm.
1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
Procedural Background
In May 2006, appellant pleaded guilty to multiple offenses,
including second degree robbery (§ 211, counts 1 and 14) and
felony false imprisonment by violence (§ 236, count 7). Appellant
admitted various firearm enhancement allegations (§§ 12022.53,
subd. (b), 12022.5, subd. (a)). He further admitted that he
suffered a prior conviction pursuant to the “Three Strikes” law
and that he had a one year prison prior pursuant to section 667.5,
subdivision (b). The trial court sentenced appellant to an
aggregate determinate term of 29 years in state prison.2
In February 2023, the trial court received notice from the
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation that
appellant’s sentence included an invalid prison prior.
In August 2024, the trial court conducted a resentencing
hearing, struck the prison prior, but did not otherwise modify
appellant’s sentence. Appellant’s aggregate sentence was
reduced to 28 years imprisonment.
Discussion
Where, as here, appointed counsel finds no arguable issues
in an appeal from an order denying postconviction relief pursuant
to section 1172.75, appellant is not entitled to our independent
review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d
436, or its federal constitutional counterpart, Anders v. California
(1967) 386 U.S. 738. (Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 226.) He
is, however, entitled to appellate consideration of any contentions
raised in his supplemental brief. (Id. at p. 232.)
2 Appellant also pleaded guilty in counts two through six
and in count eight but the trial court ordered sentencing stayed
on those counts.
2
Here, appellant filed a supplemental brief contending that
he should have been sentenced to the middle term instead of the
upper term on the principal robbery count. He asserts “the trial
court did not consider [whether] it had discretion” to impose a
lesser term. This contention is meritless.
The record reflects that the trial court was well aware of its
discretion to resentence appellant beyond striking the one-year
prior but expressly declined to do so after finding that appellant’s
“behavior continues to evidence a risk for future violence and a
real concern to the endangerment of public safety.” Thus,
appellant is not entitled to a lesser term because, as the trial
court concluded, “the interest of justice does not merit it.”
Disposition
The trial court’s order denying appellant’s petition for
resentencing is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
YEGAN, J.
We concur:
GILBERT, P. J.
CODY, J.
3
George G. Lomeli, Judge
Superior Court County of Los Angeles
______________________________
Wayne C. Tobin, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Respondent.