Filed 6/12/17 P. v. Thompson 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
(San Joaquin)
----




THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

BERTRAND THOMPSON,

Defendant and Appellant.
C082417

(Super. Ct. Nos. STKCRCNV19980016794 & SP062695C)




Appointed counsel for defendant Bertrand Thompson has asked this court to review the record to determine whether there exist any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) We affirm the judgment.
I
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.)
In 1999, a jury convicted defendant and his codefendant, Anthony Webb, of the first degree murders of Julio Castaneda (count I), Dario Del Real (count III), and Victor Flores (count IV) and the second degree robberies of Castaneda (count II) and Flores (count V). (Pen. Code, §§ 187, 211.) The jury found that the murders were committed during robberies and that counts I and III involved multiple murders (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(3), (17)(A)); and that defendant was armed with a gun in the commission of counts I and II (§ 12022, subd. (a)) and personally used a gun in the commission of counts IV and V (§ 12022.5, subd. (a)). Thompson was sentenced to a determinate term of eight years plus three consecutive indeterminate terms of life without the possibility of parole.
Defendant appealed and, in an opinion filed April 3, 2002, this court modified the judgment to stay the sentences imposed for defendant’s robbery convictions and affirmed the judgment as modified.
On June 22, 2015, defendant filed a petition for recall and resentencing pursuant to section 1170, subdivision (d)(2), requesting that the trial court exercise its equitable authority to recall his sentence because he was “physiologically and psychologically under 18 years of age” at the time of the crimes, thus rendering him eligible for relief.
The People opposed defendant’s petition arguing, among other things, that defendant was statutorily ineligible to be resentenced under section 1170, subdivision (d)(2) and “[a]ny argument of mental age is not compelling and completely without authority.”
Following a hearing on May 9, 2016, at which defendant addressed the court, the trial court denied defendant’s petition.
Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.
II
Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests that we review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. 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. More than 30 days elapsed and we received no communication from defendant.
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 judgment is affirmed.



/s/
Blease, J.


We concur:



/s/
Raye, P. J.



/s/
Hull, J.