People v. Sanchez CA4/3

Filed 3/26/15 P. v. Sanchez 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, G050561

v. (Super. Ct. No. 96SF0819)

ARTHUR JOSEPH SANCHEZ, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Richard M. King, Judge. Affirmed. John E. Edwards, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

We appointed counsel to represent Arthur Joseph Sanchez on appeal. Counsel filed a brief that set forth the facts of the case. Counsel did not argue against his client but advised the court he found no issues to argue on his client’s behalf. We gave Sanchez 30 days to file written argument on his own behalf. That time has passed, and he did not file a brief. Counsel filed a brief following the procedures outlined in People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). The Wende court explained a Wende brief is one that sets forth a summary of the proceedings and the facts but raises no specific issues. Under these circumstances, the court must conduct an independent review of the entire record. When the appellant himself raises specific issues in a Wende proceeding, we must expressly address them in our opinion and explain why they fail. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 124.) Here, Sanchez did not file a supplemental brief raising any issues. Sanchez appeals from the trial court’s denial of his petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.126 (all further statutory references are to the Penal Code). Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, to assist this court with our independent review, counsel provided the court with information as to the following three issues that might arguably support an appeal: (1) “[w]hether the disqualifying factor for resentencing under section 1170.126 of being armed with a firearm be proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt in the context of the underlying offense . . .”; (2) “[w]hether an inmate who is serving time for a conviction for possession of a firearm, not being armed with a firearm, is disqualified from resentencing under section 1170.126 . . .”; and (3) “[w]hether being armed with a firearm during the commission of the offense upon which the appellant is seeking resentencing requires some facilitative nexus to an underlying felony unrelated to possession of the firearm . . . .” We have reviewed the record in accordance with our obligations under Wende and Anders, and considered the information provided by counsel. We found no arguable issues on appeal. The judgment is affirmed.