Filed 5/26/17 P. v. DeCamp 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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.

ROBERT RAY DECAMP,

Defendant and Appellant.


C081490

(Super. Ct. No. 97F09666)


Appointed counsel for defendant Robert Ray DeCamp has 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. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) After reviewing the record, we affirm the judgment.
We provide the following brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.)
On April 23, 1999, after a jury convicted defendant of first degree murder and robbery, the trial court sentenced him to serve 25 years to life in state prison. Codefendant Everett Lanail McCoy, convicted by a separate jury of first degree felony murder and two counts of robbery, was sentenced to serve 25 years to life plus three years in state prison. (People v. McCoy et al. (Feb. 21, 2001, C032512) [nonpub. opn.].)
The evidence at trial showed that on July 30, 1997, defendant (then 14 years old), McCoy (then 15 years old), and others decided to order a pizza delivery to defendant’s home as a subterfuge to rob the delivery person. When a delivery person arrived, defendant and the others robbed and fatally beat him. (People v. McCoy, supra, C032512.)
This court affirmed the judgment in its entirety on February 21, 2001. (McCoy, supra, C032512.)
On December 31, 2015, defendant filed a petition for modification of his sentence in superior court, citing Penal Code sections 3051 and 4801. On January 28, 2016, the court denied defendant’s petition, stating it had no jurisdiction to entertain the motion under those provisions and declining to treat the petition as a habeas corpus petition. Defendant filed a notice of appeal from the court’s order on February 19, 2016.
Appointed counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests 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 of the opening brief.
Defendant filed a supplemental brief asking this court to perform Wende review. We have done so. He also includes a request to relieve current counsel. We decline to do so.
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 order denying defendant’s petition for modification of sentence is affirmed.



/s/
HOCH, J.



We concur:



/s/
NICHOLSON, Acting P. J.



/s/
MAURO, J.