People v. Burton CA4/1

Filed 3/18/21 P. v. Burton CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, D077855

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD212531)

RAYSHEON MARQUISE BURTON,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, David M. Gill, Judge. Affirmed. Mary Woodward Wells, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. In 2009, a jury convicted Raysheon Marquise Burton of first degree

murder (Pen. Code,1 § 187, subd. (a); count 1) and attempted premeditated murder (§§ 187 and 664; count 2). The jury found Burton was armed with a

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.

firearm (§ 12022, subd. (a)(1)), and personally discharged a firearm causing death or great bodily injury (§ 12022.53, subds. (b), (c), and (d)). Burton was sentenced to an indeterminate term of 75 years to life in prison. Burton appealed and this court affirmed his convictions in an unpublished opinion. (People v. Burton (Jan. 13, 2012, D056818) [nonpub. opn.].) In March 2019, Burton filed a petition for resentencing under section 1170.95. The court appointed counsel, received briefing, and reviewed the record of conviction. The court denied the petition by written order which found the record established Burton was the shooter who killed the victim. Burton filed a timely notice of appeal. Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) indicating counsel has been unable to identify any arguable issue for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks the court to review the record for error as mandated by Wende. We offered Burton the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded. STATEMENT OF FACTS The facts of the offenses are fully set forth in our prior opinion. We decline to repeat them here. (People v. Burton, supra, D056818.) DISCUSSION As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a Wende brief and asks the court to review the record for error. To assist the court in its review, and in compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), counsel has identified the following possible issues which were considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: