People v. Preyer CA4/3

Filed 10/13/15 P. v. Preyer 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 The opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, G051930

v. (Super. Ct. No. 98CF0883)

HOMER LEE PREYER, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Thomas A. Glazier, Judge. Affirmed. John F. Schuck, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. * * *

Homer Lee Preyer appeals from an order denying his petition to recall a sentence imposed in 1998 for second degree robbery, pursuant to Proposition 47, the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act (Pen. Code, § 1170.18; all statutory citations are to this code unless otherwise designated). Preyer appealed, and his 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, but raised no specific issues, and asked this court to review the record to determine whether there were any arguable matters. Counsel submitted a declaration stating he thoroughly reviewed the record. Counsel advised Preyer he would file a Wende brief, and he was providing him with a copy. He advised Preyer he could personally file a supplemental brief on his own behalf raising any issues he believed worthy of consideration, and sent Preyer a copy of the appellate record. Counsel did not argue against his client or declare the appeal was frivolous. He advised Preyer he could ask the court to relieve him as counsel. We gave Preyer 30 days to file a supplemental brief, and Preyer submitted two supplemental briefs. We have reviewed the record and Preyer’s supplemental briefs, found no arguable issues, and therefore affirm the order. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In May 1998, the Orange County District Attorney filed an information alleging Preyer committed second degree robbery (§§ 211, 212.5, subd. (c), 213, subd. (a)(2)) and grand theft (§ 487, subd. (c)) on March 25, 1998. The information further alleged Preyer had suffered nine prior convictions qualifying as strikes under the Three Strikes law (§§ 667, subds. (d) & (e)(2); 1170.12), and two prior convictions triggering five-year enhancements under section 667, subdivision (a)(1). In September 1998, a jury found Preyer guilty of second degree robbery, and the trial court found the prior conviction allegations true. In February 1999, the court imposed a sentence of 35 years to life.