Filed 5/29/13  P. v. Young CA2/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE
OFFICIAL REPORTS

 


 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

 

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

 

DIVISION TWO

 

 
>

THE PEOPLE,               Plaintiff and Respondent,               v.   ANDREW LEE YOUNG,               Defendant and Appellant.

B241993         (Los Angeles County       Super. Ct. No. NA077229)

 

 

THE COURT:href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" title="">^*

Defendant and appellant
Andrew Lee Young (defendant) appeals his judgment entered on remand June 11, 2012, after we reversed his
prior sentence in a nonpublished opinion. 
(People v. Young (Jan. 10, 2012, B227428).)  Defendant’s appointed counsel filed a brief
pursuant to href="http://www.mcmillanlaw.com/">People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436
(Wende), raising no issues.  On January
23, 2013, we notified defendant of his counsel’s brief and gave him
leave to file, within 30 days, his own brief or letter stating any grounds or
argument he might wish to have considered, and granted additional time to April 1, 2013.  That date has passed and defendant has
submitted no letter or brief.  We have
reviewed the entire record and find that the trial court neglected to comply
with our directions on remand in just one respect:  correcting the fees previously imposed at
sentencing.  We thus modify the judgment,
but finding no other error or other arguable issues, we otherwise affirm.

In 2008, defendant
negotiated a plea agreement with the
assistance of counsel, pled no contest to six counts, admitted two prior
convictions for purposes of sentencing under the “Three Strikes” law (§§
1170.12, subds. (a)-(d); 667, subds. (b)-(i)), and was sentenced to a six-year
prison term, comprised of the upper term of three years on count 1, doubled as
a second strike, plus concurrent terms as to each of the remaining counts.  The court struck one of the prior strikes,
suspended execution of sentence, and placed defendant on three years of formal
probation.  In 2010, while on probation,
defendant was charged with a new offense in case No. NA084896 (the new case),
along with a special allegation of two prior strikes.  Trial on the new case and the probation
violation hearing were assigned together to a different judge.  Defendant represented himself in the
probation violation hearing, after which the trial court found him to be in
violation.

The trial court stated
that the concurrent terms originally imposed in this case were unauthorized,
and informed defendant that if convicted on the new charge, he could face an
increased term.  Believing such a result
would violate the terms of his plea agreement, defendant asked to withdraw his
plea.  When the court refused to consider
the request, defendant asked for representation by counsel, but the trial court
refused that request as well.  After
defendant was convicted in the new case, the trial court then resentenced
defendant to an aggregate term on both cases of 10 years by imposing a
four-year sentence in this case and making it subordinate to the six-year term
imposed in the new case.  The four-year
term was comprised of eight months (one-third the middle term) for each of the
six counts, doubled to 16 months, to run consecutively to the principal term.  The court stayed the terms imposed on three
of the counts.  Defendant again appealed
and we reversed the four-year sentence, directing the trial court to afford
defendant counsel at resentencing and to correct its unauthorized imposition of
fees by reducing the court security fee from $30 to $20 and by eliminating the
$30 court facilities assessment.

Counsel was appointed on
remand and he filed a motion to withdraw
defendant’s plea.  The trial court denied
the motion and again sentenced defendant to consecutive one-third middle terms
of eight months for each of the six counts, doubled to 16 months, while staying
the terms on three counts, for a total term of four years, subordinate to the
sentence in case No. NA084896.  However,
the court neglected to correct its imposition of fees.  We thus do so here.

Upon examining the entire
record, we are satisfied that defendant’s appellate counsel has otherwise fully
complied with her responsibilities and that no other arguable issue
exists.  We conclude that defendant has,
by virtue of counsel’s compliance with the Wende
procedure and our review of the record, received adequate and effective
appellate review of the judgment entered against him in this case.  (Smith
v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 278; People
v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 123-124.)

The court security fee is
reduced to $20 and the court facilities assessment is eliminated.  The trial court is directed to prepare a
corrected abstract of judgment and forward a certified copy of it to the href="http://www.fearnotlaw.com/">Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.  As modified, the judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN
THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.