Filed 4/22/21 P. v. Belfield CA1/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. TONY BELFIELD, Defendant and Appellant. |
A161793
(Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. 51505346)
|
Tony Belfield appeals the trial court’s decision on resentencing declining to strike a five-year recidivist enhancement imposed under Penal Code section 667, subdivision (a).[1] His court-appointed counsel has filed a brief seeking our independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. We have reviewed the record and conclude there are no issues requiring further review. We affirm.
In People v. Belfield (Nov. 29, 2018, A149964) [nonpub. opn.], we affirmed Belfield’s conviction for second-degree murder and remanded for the trial court to apply its newly-conferred discretion regarding whether to strike a section 12022.53, subdivision (d) firearms enhancement. On remand the trial court struck the enhancement, effectively reducing Belfield’s sentence from 75 years to life to 50 years to life. The court declined to consider Belfield’s further request to strike a five-year enhancement imposed under section 667, subdivision (a).
Belfield appealed again. In People v. Belfield (June 19, 2020, A158180) [nonpub. opn.] we remanded for the trial court to exercise its discretion as to whether to strike the section 667, subdivision (a) enhancement. On December 4, 2020, the court exercised that discretion and declined to strike the enhancement. Belfield filed this timely appeal.
DISCUSSION
Belfield’s counsel has represented that he advised Belfield of his right to file a Wende brief and to submit supplemental written argument on his own behalf. Belfield has also been advised of his right to request that counsel be relieved. He has not done so. Our review of the record reveals no issue that warrants further briefing.
DISPOSITION
The order of the trial court is affirmed.
_________________________
Wiseman, J.*
WE CONCUR:
_________________________
Petrou, Acting P.J.
_________________________
Jackson, J.
People v. Belfield, A161793
[1] Further statutory citations are to the Penal Code.
* Retired Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.
