Filed 6/15/22 P. v. Fowler 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
CHARLES BENJAMIN FOWLER,
Defendant and Appellant.
| D079972
(Super. Ct. No. SCD166210) |
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Michael T. Smyth, Judge. Affirmed.
Aaron J. Schechter, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
In 2003, Charles Benjamin Fowler was convicted of 10 counts of second degree robbery (Pen. Code,[1] § 211) and one count of attempted second degree robbery (§§ 664 & 211). He was sentenced under the three strikes law to consecutive 25 years to life on counts 1-10 and 12, plus five years for a prior serious felony conviction (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)) for an aggregate term of 280 years in prison.
In 2021, Fowler filed a petition to reduce the conviction to misdemeanors and be resentenced pursuant to section 1170.18. The court denied the petition, finding none of the robbery or attempted robbery counts was eligible for resentencing under section 1170.18.
Fowler 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 not been able to identify any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks the court to review the record for error as mandated by Wende. We offered Fowler the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded.[2]
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 possible issues that were considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal:
1. Did the trial court err in denying Fowler’s petition for resentencing pursuant to section 1170.18?
2. Did the trial court err in finding that none of the counts were eligible for resentencing under section 1170.18?
We have reviewed the entire record as required by Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Fowler on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The order denying Fowler’s petition for resentencing under section 1170.18 is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.
WE CONCUR:
AARON, J.
BUCHANAN, J.
[1] All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
[2] The facts of the offenses are not relevant to the questions on this appeal. We will omit a statement of facts.
