People v. Davis CA4/3

Filed 6/16/15 P. v. Davis 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, G050664

v. (Super. Ct. No. 01WF1445)

JEFFREY SHANE DAVIS, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Gary S. Paer, Judge. Affirmed. Esther K. Hong, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

We appointed counsel to represent Jeffrey Shane Davis on appeal. Counsel filed a brief that set forth the facts of the case. Counsel did not argue against her client but advised the court she found no issues to argue on his behalf. Davis was given 30 days to file written argument on his own behalf. That time has passed, and Davis did not file a brief. Counsel filed a brief following the procedures outlined in People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). The court in Wende explained a Wende brief is one that sets forth a summary of proceedings and facts but raises no specific issues. Under these circumstances, the court must conduct an independent review of the entire record. When specific issues are raised by the appellant himself 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, 110, 120, 124.) Here, Davis did not file a brief raising any issues. Davis appeals from the trial court’s finding he was ineligible for 1 resentencing pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.126. Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), to assist the court with its independent review, counsel provided the court with information as to an issue that might arguably support an appeal. Did the trial court err when it found Davis was ineligible for resentencing because he had been convicted of battery with serious bodily harm? 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. FACTS In November 2001, an information charged Davis with assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(1), count 1), and battery with serious bodily injury (§ 243, subd. (d), count 2). The information alleged that on counts 1 1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.