People v. Strother CA4/3

Filed 1/15/16 P. v. Strother 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, G051945

v. (Super. Ct. No. 00ZF0112)

STEVEN MATTHEW STROTHER, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Thomas A. Glazier, Judge. Affirmed. Marta I. Stanton, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

We appointed counsel to represent Steven Matthew Strother 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. We gave Strother 30 days to file written argument on his own behalf. On October 9, 2015, he filed a letter 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.) 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 issues that might arguably support an appeal. Counsel raised one issue: whether the court erred in denying Strother’s motion to be resentenced on his felony convictions pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.18 (all further statutory references are to the Pen. Code, unless otherwise indicated). In his brief, Strother requested this court resentence him on three first degree burglary convictions so as to make the sentences on the three convictions concurrent, reduce six felony convictions to a “lower count . . . in the interest of justice,” and reduce his sentence for evading while driving recklessly “from a life sentence to the maximum penalty below the [three] strike enhancement. In support of these requests, Strother asserts “[he] is not a threat to the public Prop 47.” We have reviewed the record in accordance with our obligations under Wende and Anders, and considered Strother’s supplemental brief and the information provided by counsel. We found no arguable issues on appeal. The judgment is affirmed.