People v. Roche CA4/3

Filed 5/31/16 P. v. Roche 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, G052690

v. (Super. Ct. No. 99NF0269)

KIM L. ROCHE, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Sheila F. Hanson, Judge. Affirmed. Carl Fabian, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

We appointed counsel to represent Kim L. Roche 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 behalf. We gave Roche 30 days to file written argument on his own behalf. That time has passed, and Roche has not filed any written argument. 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 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, 110, 120, 124.) Roche did not raise any issues himself. 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 identified the following three issues: did the trial court err by finding Roche ineligible for resentencing (Pen. Code, § 1170.126, all further statutory references are to the Pen. Code); was Roche entitled to the appointment of counsel to assist him in filing a petition for resentencing; and was Roche entitled to be present in court for a hearing on his petition for resentencing. We have reviewed the record in accordance with our obligations under Wende and Anders, and considered the information counsel provided. We found no arguable issues on appeal. The judgment is affirmed. FACTS In November 2012, the voters approved Proposition 36, the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012 (the Act) (§ 1170.126). The Act created a postconviction release proceeding whereby a prisoner who is serving an indeterminate life sentence imposed