P. v. Parker
Filed 9/12/13 P. v. Parker CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
GARY BERNARD
PARKER,
Defendant and Appellant.
E058489
(Super.Ct.No.
FWV021333)
OPINION
APPEAL
from the Superior Court of
County. Michael
A. Smith, Judge. (Retired judge of the San Bernardino Super. Ct. assigned by the Chief
Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Affirmed.
Howard
C. Cohen, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No
appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
A
felony complaint filed in October 2000 charged defendant and appellant Gary
Bernard Parker with one count of second
degree robbery. (Pen. Code, §
211.) The complaint also alleged that
defendant had suffered six prior serious or violent felony convictions. (Pen. Code, §§ 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d),
667, subds. (b)-(i).)
The
record does not include the information, verdicts, or
second degree robbery (Pen. Code, § 211, count 1) and grand theft of property
(Pen. Code, § 487, subd. (a), count 2).
The April 16, 2001 minute order shows defendant’s motion for new trial
was denied. He was sentenced pursuant to
Penal Code section 1170.12, subdivision (c)(2), and section 667, subdivision
(e)(2), for a total indeterminate term of 25 years to life in state
prison.
Defendant appealed, and we
reversed the grand theft count as being a lesser included offense of the
robbery. (See
opn.].) On July 11, 2002, on the court’s own motion, count 2 (grand
theft) was dismissed
by the trial court. A new abstract of
judgment was filed July 24, 2002.
On March 8, 2013, defendant filed a petition for recall of sentence
under the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012.
(Pen. Code, § 1170.126.) Finding
that defendant was ineligible because the current commitment includes robbery
(a serious felony), the trial court denied defendant’s petition on March 21, 2013.
On April 2, 2013, defendant filed a timely
denial of his petition for recall.
After
defendant appealed, and upon his request, this court appointed counsel to
represent him. Counsel has filed a brief
under the authority of People v. Wende
(1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v.
California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, setting forth a statement of the case, a
summary of the facts and potential arguable issues, and requesting this court
to undertake a review of the entire record.
We
offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal
supplemental brief, but he has not done so.
Pursuant to the mandate of People
v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have conducted an independent review of
the record and find no arguable issues.
The
judgment is affirmed.
NOT
TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
McKINSTER
J.
We
concur:
HOLLENHORST
Acting P. J.
KING
J.
name="_ftn1" title=""> [1] Because
this appeal is from a trial court’s denial of a petition to recall a sentence,
the underlying facts of the offenses are irrelevant.
