People v. Arnett CA4/3

Filed 5/14/15 P. v. Arnett 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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). The opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, G051101

v. (Super. Ct. No. FSB1200158)

JESUS LAMAR ARNETT, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of San Bernardino County,

Michael A. Smith, Judge. (Retired judge of the San Bernardino Sup. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Affirmed. Nancy L. Tetreault, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for

Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. * * *

Jesus Lamar Arnett appeals from the trial court’s order denying his petition to recall his sentence under Penal Code section 1170.126 (all statutory references are to the Penal Code). Arnett’s appointed counsel filed a brief under the procedures outlined in People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). Counsel summarized the facts and procedural history of the case, and cited possible legal issues, but asserted no specific appellate claims, and asked this court to review the record to determine whether there were any arguable matters. Counsel submitted a declaration stating she thoroughly reviewed the entire record, as did an attorney at Appellate Defender’s, Inc. Counsel advised Arnett she was filing a Wende brief, provided him a copy of the brief, would make the appellate record available to him, and advised Arnett he could personally file a supplemental brief on his own behalf raising any issues he believed worthy of consideration. Counsel did not argue against her client or assert the appeal was frivolous. She did not move to withdraw as counsel, but advised Arnett he could ask the court to relieve her as counsel. We gave Arnett 30 days to file a supplemental brief, but he has not responded. We have reviewed the record, found no arguable issues, and therefore affirm the judgment. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY The facts and procedural history are recounted in our prior opinion affirming Arnett’s convictions and sentence. (People v. Arnett (Dec. 23, 2014, G050397 [nonpub opn.].) Briefly, in May 2012, a jury convicted Jesus Lamar Arnett of two counts of forgery (§§ 475, subd. (a), 476). The trial court found Arnett suffered two prior felony convictions in 2000 for lewd or lascivious conduct against a child under the age of 14 (§ 288, subd. (a)), declined to strike either of the prior convictions (People v. Romero (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 1418, 1434; § 1385) and sentenced Arnett as a third strike offender under sections 667, subdivisions (b)-(i) and 1170.12, subdivisions (a)-(d). The court imposed a term of 25 years to life for forgery, plus three consecutive one-year terms