People v. Franklin CA4/1

Filed 9/24/20 P. v. Franklin CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE, D077233

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. SCN404482)

ROBERT LEE FRANKLIN,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, David J. Danielsen (Retired Judge of the San Diego Sup. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.). Affirmed. Robert Lee Franklin, in pro. per.; and Alex Kreit, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. On September 16, 2019, Robert Lee Franklin pleaded guilty to one count of grand theft of property of a value greater than $950 (Pen. Code,

§ 487, subd. (a)).1 The parties stipulated to a four-year term in local prison.

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.

The remaining charges and allegations were dismissed. Franklin was sentenced in accordance with the plea agreement. Franklin did not appeal from the plea and sentence. Thereafter, Franklin filed three pro per forms for resentencing under section 1170.18 (Proposition 47). In January 2020, the court denied the petitions by written order. The court found Franklin, who had admitted the property taken was valued in excess of $950, was not eligible for relief under section 1170.18. Franklin filed a notice of appeal from the denial of his petition for resentencing. Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) indicating he has not identified any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks the court to review the record for error as mandated by Wende. We offered Franklin the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal. Franklin has responded with a lengthy document. We will discuss his submission below.