Filed 11/21/18 P. v. Farlow 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
(Sutter)
----
| THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
DEANDREA JOVELL FARLOW,
Defendant and Appellant.
|
C086423
(Super. Ct. No. CRF090002926)
|
Appointed counsel for defendant Deandrea Jovell Farlow asked this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we affirm the judgment.
A jury found defendant guilty of three counts of robbery (Pen. Code, § 211),[1] three counts of assault with a firearm (§ 245, subd. (a)(2)), and 20 counts of false imprisonment by force (§ 236/237). It also found true the special allegation that defendant was armed with a firearm (§ 12022, subd. (a)(1)) in all but three of those counts. Defendant was sentenced to serve a total prison term of 11 years 8 months. His appeal from this conviction (case No. C066579) was affirmed in full by this court on August 22, 2012.
Thereafter, on December 26, 2017, defendant filed a postjudgment motion in pro per, inviting the trial court to exercise its discretion to strike his firearm enhancements imposed under section 12022.5, subdivision (a), in light of Senate Bill No. 620 ((2017–2018 Reg. Sess.) Stats. 2017, ch. 682, §§ 1 & 2) (SB 620). The trial court denied defendant’s motion, noting his firearm enhancements were imposed pursuant to section 12022, subdivision (a)(1), not section 12022.5, subdivision (a). Defendant timely appealed.
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the relevant procedural history 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 from the date the opening brief was filed. Defendant was granted an extension until July 16, 2018 to file such brief, but to date, has not done so.
Assuming without deciding that we have jurisdiction to consider defendant’s appeal from the trial court’s denial of his request for resentencing in light of SB 620 and having undertaken an examination of the entire record pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant. Consequently, we affirm the order.
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed.
/s/
HOCH, J.
We concur:
/s/
RAYE, P. J.
/s/
DUARTE, J.
[1] Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
