Opinion
B295645
03-17-2020
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. WILLIE LEE ALEXANDER, Defendant and Appellant.
Rachel Varnell, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. SA029480) APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Kathryn Solorzano, Judge. Affirmed. Rachel Varnell, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant and appellant Willie Lee Alexander was charged with three counts of robbery in an information filed in 1997. Following a jury trial, he was convicted in 1998 on all three counts; the jury also found true associated firearm enhancements under Penal Code section 12022.5(a), a prior serious felony conviction enhancement under Penal Code section 667(a)(1), and a prior prison term enhancement under Penal Code section 667.5(b). Defendant was sentenced to serve 36 years and eight months in prison.
Many years later, in December 2018, defendant filed a motion seeking a further reduction in his sentence—specifically, elimination of the Penal Code section 667(a)(1) enhancement—pursuant to Senate Bill No. 620 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.), which took effect on January 1, 2018. The trial court denied the motion because defendant's robbery convictions were already final when Senate Bill No. 620 took effect.
Defendant noticed an appeal from the trial court's denial of his request for Senate Bill No. 620 relief. This court appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal, and after examining the record, counsel filed an opening brief raising no issues. On October 17, 2019, this court advised defendant he had 30 days to personally submit any contentions or issues he wished us to consider. We received no response.
We have examined the appellate record and are satisfied defendant's attorney has complied with the responsibilities of counsel and no arguable issue exists. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 278-82; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 122-24; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)
DISPOSITION
The trial court's order is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
BAKER, J. We concur:
RUBIN, P. J.
MOOR, J.