People v. Kendrick CA5

Filed 12/10/25 P. v. Kendrick CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, F088176 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. DF008260A) v.

JOHN FINDLEY KENDRICK II, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. David Wolf, Judge. Heather E. Shallenberger, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Office of the Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

-ooOoo-

* Before Detjen, Acting P. J., Peña, J. and Harrell, J.

INTRODUCTION In 2007, defendant John Findley Kendrick II was charged with possession of a weapon in state prison (Pen. Code,1§ 4502, subd. (a)) and it was alleged that defendant had suffered seven prior strike convictions. Defendant pleaded guilty to the felony charge in 2008 and admitted the prior strike allegations. The court granted the defense’s motion to strike six of his seven prior strike convictions and it sentenced defendant to eight years (the upper term of four years doubled to eight years). In 2024, the trial court received defendant’s petition to vacate an unauthorized sentence in which he asserted his 2008 sentence was unauthorized because he did not agree to a second strike sentence as part of the plea. The trial court summarily denied the petition finding defendant was “not eligible for [the] relief requested.” Defendant appeals from the court’s order denying relief. His counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo). Our court sent defendant a letter notifying him counsel found no arguable issues, he had 30 days to file a supplemental letter or brief raising any arguable issues, and his failure to file a supplemental letter or brief could result in this court dismissing the appeal as abandoned. Defendant did not file a supplemental letter or brief. Because we conclude the appeal arises from a nonappealable order, we dismiss it. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In 2007, defendant was charged with willfully and unlawfully possessing a weapon, to wit: dirk, dagger or a sharp instrument, while in prison (count 1, § 4502, subd. (a)). It was further alleged that defendant was previously convicted of seven prior strike convictions (§§ 667, subds. (c)-(j); 1170.12, subds. (a)-(e)) on June 19, 1997—four counts of robbery (§ 211), and three counts of false imprisonment (§§ 236, 237, 12022.5).