Filed 12/3/18 P. v. Bryant 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
(Sacramento)
----
| THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
DARRYL KEITH BRYANT,
Defendant and Appellant.
| C086343
(Super. Ct. No. 04F05012)
|
Defendant Darryl Keith Bryant appeals from an order denying a petition to recall his so-called “three strikes” sentence of 25 years to life, brought pursuant to the provisions of the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012 (the Act), codified at Penal Code section 1170.126.[1] (See Teal v. Superior Court (2014) 60 Cal.4th 595.)
Defendant’s petition to recall his sentence and for resentencing was denied upon determination that he was not eligible for relief under the Act because resentencing defendant would pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety. (See § 1170.126, subd. (g).)[2]
Counsel was appointed to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and requesting 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).) Counsel advised defendant of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days have elapsed, and we have received no communication from defendant.
Whether the protections afforded by Wende and the United States Supreme Court decision in Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 [18 L.Ed.2d 493] apply to an appeal from an order denying a petition brought pursuant to the Act remains an open question. Our Supreme Court has not spoken. The Anders/Wende procedures address appointed counsel’s representation of an indigent criminal defendant in the first appeal as a matter of right and courts have been loath to expand their application to other proceedings or appeals. (See Pennsylvania v. Finley (1987) 481 U.S. 551 [95 L.Ed.2d 539]; Conservatorship of Ben C. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 529; In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952; People v. Martinez (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 1226; People v. Kisling (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 288; People v. Serrano (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 496; People v. Dobson (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 1422; People v. Taylor (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 304; People v. Thurman (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 36; Glen C. v. Superior Court (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 570.) Nonetheless, in the absence of Supreme Court authority to the contrary, we will adhere to Wende in the present case, where counsel has already undertaken to comply with Wende requirements and defendant has been afforded an opportunity to file a supplemental brief.
Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
DISPOSITION
The judgment (order) is affirmed.
RAYE , P. J.
We concur:
BLEASE , J.
ROBIE , J.
[1] Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
[2] At pages 8 through 15 of the reporter’s transcript of January 19, 2018, the trial judge recites at length defendant’s criminal history and prison disciplinary record in support of the conclusion that defendant poses an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety. That recitation is supported by the district attorney’s extensive oppositions to the petition.
