Filed 6/30/22 P. v. Dunsmore 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Garry G. Haehnle, Judge. Affirmed.

Darryl Dunsmore, in pro. per.; and Dawn S. Mortazavi, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

In 2010, Darry Dunsmore was convicted of attempted voluntary manslaughter while personally inflicting great bodily injury (Pen. Code,[1] §§ 192, subd. (a), 664, and 12022.7, subd. (a)), assault with a deadly weapon while inflicting great bodily injury (§§ 245, subd. (a)(1) and 12022.7, subd. (a)), and a second count of assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)). The court found true a serious felony prior conviction (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)), a prison prior (§ 667.5, subd. (b)), and a strike prior (§ 667, subds. (b)-(i)).

Dunsmore was ultimately sentenced to a determinate term of 21 years in prison.

Dunsmore appealed and this court affirmed the conviction in an unpublished opinion. (People v. Dunsmore (Dec. 21, 2011, D057645).)

In 2021, Dunsmore filed a petition for resentencing under section 1170.95. The trial court denied the petition, finding attempted voluntary manslaughter was not an offense covered by section 1170.95, as amended by Senate Bill No. 775.

Dunsmore 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 Dunsmore the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal and he has responded with a supplemental letter brief. We will discuss his submission below.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The facts of the offenses are set forth in our previous opinion, (People v. Dunsmore, supra, D057645). We will not repeat them here, except to note the record shows Dunsmore was the sole perpetrator of the criminal acts.

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 the following possible issues which were considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal:

1. Whether the trial court prejudicially erred in failing to appoint counsel.

2. Whether the trial court erred in denying appellant’s petition for resentencing.

In his brief, Dunsmore lists a wide range of complaints. He contends appellate counsel in this appeal and the prior appeal were ineffective for not providing a better record. He complains about his original conviction and the calculation of custody credits, fees, and fines. He baldly asserts the trial court was mistaken and his offense comes within the resentencing statute as amended by Senate Bill No. 775. In short, Dunsmore’s myriad contentions do not identify arguable issues for reversal on appeal based on the record before us.

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 Dunsmore on this appeal.

DISPOSITION

The order denying Dunsmore’s petition for resentencing under section 1170.95 is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, J.

WE CONCUR:

McCONNELL, P. J.

BUCHANAN, J.

[1] All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.