P. v. Quinton
Filed 7/19/13 P. v. Quinton CA4/1
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 This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115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. ERIC QUINTON, Defendant and Appellant. | D063231 (Super. Ct. No. SCS172950) |
APPEAL from
an order of the Superior Court
of
County, David J. Danielsen, Judge. Affirmed.
Law Offices
of Russell S. Babcock and Russell S. Babcock, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No
appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
In 2003,
Eric Quinton was convicted of making criminal
threats (Pen. Code,
name="_ftnref1" title="">[1]
§ 422). He admitted two
serious/violent felony prior convictions ("strike priors") within the
meaning of section 667, subdivisions (b) through (i). Quinton was sentenced to an indeterminate
term of 25 years to life.
Following
the passage of Proposition 36 (Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012), Quinton filed
a petition to recall his sentence pursuant to section 1170.126. The trial court denied Quinton's petition
finding that his 2003 conviction for criminal threats was a serious felony and
thus Quinton was not eligible for sentence modification.
Quinton
filed a timely notice of appeal.
Counsel has
filed a brief pursuant to
Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and
(Anders) raising a possible, but not
arguable issue. We offered Quinton the
opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded.
DISCUSSION
As we have
previously noted, appellate counsel has filed a brief indicating he is unable
to identify any argument for reversal and asks this court to review the record
for error as mandated by Wende, supra,
25 Cal.3d 436. Although counsel has
not separately set out the possible, but not arguable, issue as required by
cited Anders, and the record and
brief make clear there is only one possible issue. That issue is whether Quinton, who is serving
a third strike sentence following his 2003 conviction for a serious felony with
two strike priors, is eligible for sentence modification under Proposition
36. He is not eligible for sentence
modification given that his third strike conviction was for a serious felony.
We have
reviewed the entire record in accordance with Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders, supra, 386 U.S.
738, and have not found any arguable appellate issues. Competent counsel has represented Quinton on
this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The order
denying Quinton's petition for sentence modification is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, J.
WE CONCUR:
BENKE,
Acting P. J.
HALLER,
J.
name="_ftn1" title="">[1] All further statutory references are to the Penal Code
unless otherwise specified.
name="_ftn2" title="">[2] The facts of the underlying offense are not relevant to the
issues before this court. Thus we will
omit the traditional statement of facts.
