People v. Baldon CA3

Filed 8/25/23 P. v. Baldon CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (San Joaquin) ----

THE PEOPLE, C096418

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. STKCRFE19910008335) v.

ARTHUR LEE BALDON,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appointed counsel for defendant Arthur Lee Baldon filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and asks this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal, pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). Finding no arguable errors that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we will affirm the judgment.

1

I. BACKGROUND In 1992, a jury found defendant guilty of first degree murder and found true an allegation that he personally used a firearm in committing the murder. At the time of the murder, defendant was 20 years old. In 2020, defendant filed a request pursuant to People v. Franklin (2016) 63 Cal.4th 261 (Franklin) and In re Cook (2019) 7 Cal.5th 439 to make a record of evidence relevant at an eventual youth offender parole hearing. The trial court appointed counsel for defendant and set a scheduling hearing. After the trial court set a Franklin hearing, defendant’s appointed counsel filed a motion asking the trial court to resentence defendant. Defendant’s motion conceded that such a resentencing was foreclosed by controlling precedent. (See People v. Lizarraga (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 201, 207 [grant of Franklin hearing does not permit resentencing after judgment is final]; accord People v. White (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 1229, 1238 [“a Franklin hearing does not reopen a final judgment or sentencing”].) At the Franklin hearing, the trial court granted defendant’s request to send 303 pages of records to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation for use at a future youth offender parole hearing. The trial court denied defendant’s request for resentencing. Defendant timely appealed from the denial of resentencing. II. DISCUSSION Appointed counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts and procedural history of the case and requests this court 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 his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days from the date the opening brief was filed. More than 30 days have elapsed, and defendant has not filed a supplemental brief.