People v. Brown CA3

Filed 7/7/16 P. v. Brown CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Yuba) ----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, C081029

v. (Super. Ct. No. CRF15367)

DWAYNE EARL BROWN,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appointed counsel for defendant Dwayne Earl Brown asked this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we will affirm the judgment. I Defendant entered the home of L.D. on July 3, 2015, took her purse, money, and electronic benefits card, and then fled. He was caught nearby with the victim’s electronic benefits card and cash in his pocket. Defendant told officers it was a “dope deal gone bad.” He later admitted taking the victim’s purse.

1

Defendant entered a negotiated plea of no contest to first degree burglary (Pen. Code, § 459)1 and admitted a prior serious felony (a 1983 robbery with a firearm) for purposes of a five-year enhancement (§ 667, subd. (a)) and a prior strike conviction (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12) in exchange for dismissal of the remaining counts and a stipulated sentencing range: a minimum of nine years and a maximum of 17 years in state prison. It was understood defense counsel would file a request to dismiss the prior strike conviction (People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 (Romero)) and the People would oppose it. The trial court denied defendant’s request to dismiss the prior strike conviction, noting that defendant had not led a crime-free life since his 1983 robbery conviction. It then sentenced defendant to state prison for an aggregate term of 13 years, consisting of eight years for the burglary (the midterm of four years, doubled for the prior strike) plus five years for the prior serious felony conviction. The trial court awarded 357 days of presentence credit and imposed various fines and fees. Defendant did not obtain a certificate of probable cause. (§ 1237.5.) II Appointed counsel filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and asking this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing the opening brief. Defendant filed a supplemental letter brief claiming (A) his 13-year sentence is too long for a burglary, (B) the three strikes law should not be retroactive and violates double jeopardy protections, and (C) the trial court erred in denying his Romero request,