Full Opinion

Filed 11/13/26 P. v. Moreno CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or or dered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THE PEOPLE, D086697 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. SCD103277 v. ALFREDO MORENO, Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, David J. Danielsen, Judge. Affirmed. Johanna Pirko, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.  Retired Judge of the San Diego Superior Court assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution. In 1994, a jury convicted Alfredo Moreno of nine forcible sex offenses against the same victim. He was sentenced to a term of 112 years four months in prison. The sentence was later increased on appeal due to a mandatory sentencing enhancement. The corrected sentence was 117 years four months in prison. In 2024, defense counsel petitioned for resentencing under Penal Code1 section 1172.75. The trial judge found resentencing would not pose an undue risk of danger to the public. After the court reviewed Moreno’s record and recalculated the terms of the sentences for the various offenses, the court reduced Moreno’s overall prison sentence to 85 years four months. Moreno filed a timely notice of appeal. Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 indicating counsel has not been able to identify any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks the court to independently review the record for error as mandated by Wende. We advised Moreno he could file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded. DISCUSSION As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a Wende brief and asks the court to independently review the record for error. To assist the court in its review and in compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, counsel has identified three possible issues that were considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal. 1. In making the determinations necessary to impose consecutive sentencing on counts 1–6 under section 667.6, subdivisions (c) and 1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. 2 (d), did the court err to the extent it relied on police reports contained in Moreno’s C-file? 2. Whether the court abused its discretion in finding counts 1, 3, 5, and 6 were committed on separate occasions under section 667.6, subdivision (d). 3. As to counts 2 and 4, did the court abuse its discretion by sentencing those counts under section 667.6, subdivision (c)? We have independently reviewed the record for error as required by Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issue for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Moreno in this appeal. 3 DISPOSITION The order is affirmed. HUFFMAN, J. WE CONCUR: DATO, Acting P. J. AMIN, J.  Retired Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution. 4