Filed 3/30/17 P. v. Austin CA6
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.


IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT


THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

EDWARD LEON AUSTIN,

Defendant and Appellant.
H043815
(Santa Clara County
Super. Ct. No. C1355430)

In appeal number H041449, People v, Austin (H041449, Nov. 13, 2015) [nonpub. opn.], this court reversed a number of appellant Edward Leon Austin’s convictions and remanded the case to the trial court for resentencing. This appeal follows resentencing. On remand, the trial court sentenced appellant to a term of 75 years to life plus a determinate term of 24 years pursuant to the “Three Strikes” Law. The sentence consisted of the following: 25 years to life as to robbery (Pen. Code, §§ 211/215.1(a)); criminal threats (Pen. Code, § 422); and false imprisonment (Pen. Code, §§ 236/237.) Pursuant to Penal Code section 654, the court stayed two 25 year to life terms for the burglary and grand theft of a firearm counts. (Pen. Code, §§ 459, 460(a); 484, 487(d).) The court denied appellant’s renewed Romero motion, and awarded him 785 days of custody credits. He was also ordered to pay various fines and fees. This timely appeal ensued.
On appeal, appointed counsel filed an opening brief which states the case and the facts but raises no specific issues pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). On September 9, 2016, we notified defendant that we would be disposing of his appeal pursuant to People v. Serrano (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 496 (Serrano) and of his right to submit written argument in his own behalf within 30 days. On December 6, 2016, when, after granting several requests for extension of time, we had received nothing from appellant or his counsel, we dismissed the appeal as abandoned.
Thereafter, appellant filed a late petition for rehearing. In the petition, appellant acknowledges his failure to timely object to a Serrano disposition, but requests that this court review the appeal pursuant to Wende because the appeal arises from a new judgment imposed following a post remand resentencing. After granting permission to file the late petition for rehearing, this court granted rehearing on January 5, 2017.
We have still not received any filing from appellant on his own behalf. Pursuant to our obligation as set forth in Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, we have reviewed the record but have found no arguable issues on appeal. Therefore, we will affirm the judgment.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
 
_____________________________________
RUSHING, P.J.






WE CONCUR:






_________________________________
PREMO, J.






_________________________________
ELIA, J.











People v. Austin
H043815