Filed 8/20/26 P. v. Colvin 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or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. A175767
ROYCE LAMONT COLVIN,
Defendant and Appellant. (City and County of San Francisco
Super. Ct. No. CRI17013308)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
After Royce Lamont Colvin’s prior appeal, this court remanded the
matter for resentencing.1 He now appeals from the resulting sentence. His
counsel filed a brief raising no issues and asking this court to review the
record to determine whether there are arguable issues for appeal. (People v.
Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) After our review, we find none and
affirm.
A jury convicted Colvin of first degree murder and robbery. (Pen. Code,
§§ 187, subd. (a), 211; undesignated statutory references are to this code.) It
1 We resolve this case by memorandum opinion, including only
necessary facts. (Cal. Stds. Jud. Admin., § 8.1; People v. Garcia (2002)
97 Cal.App.4th 847, 851.) We grant Colvin’s request to take judicial notice of
the record and our opinion in his prior appeal. (People v. Colvin (June 27,
2025, A170015) [nonpub. opn.]; Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (d).)
1
found true allegations that he personally and intentionally discharged a
firearm proximately causing death and used a firearm. (§§ 12022.53,
subd. (d), 12022.5, subd. (a).) The trial court sentenced him to 25 years to life
for the murder plus a consecutive term of 25 years to life for the section
12022.53 finding. It also sentenced him to three years for the robbery and an
additional prison term for the section 12022.5 finding, but it stayed both
sentences.
Colvin appealed, arguing that the trial court was unaware of its
discretion to impose a 10- or 20-year term rather than 25 years to life under
section 12022.53. We concluded the record was ambiguous and remanded for
resentencing. We also noted that the abstract of judgment erroneously
indicated that the court sentenced him to 10 years rather than 3 years for the
robbery and directed the court to correct the error. On remand, the court
clarified that it was aware of its discretion and decided to impose the higher
term at the original hearing; it then imposed the same sentence. It also
amended the abstract of judgment to reflect a three-year robbery sentence.
Colvin again appeals. His counsel filed a brief pursuant to Wende.
Colvin was notified of his right to file a supplemental brief, but he has not
done so. We have independently reviewed the record regarding the
resentencing after remand to determine whether any arguable factual or
legal issues exist. We have found none.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
2
_________________________
RODRÍGUEZ, J.
WE CONCUR:
_________________________
FUJISAKI, Acting P. J.
_________________________
PETROU, J.
A175767; People v. Colvin
3