Opinion
D076842
04-02-2020
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. PAUL DAVID CARR, Defendant and Appellant.
Laura Schaefer, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. No. SCE364831) APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, John Thompson, Judge. Affirmed. Laura Schaefer, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
A jury convicted Paul David Carr of first degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a)). The jury also found Carr had personally and intentionally discharged a firearm causing the death of a person (§ 12022.53, subd. (d)).
All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified. --------
Carr was sentenced to 25 years to life for murder and a consecutive term of 25 years to life for the firearm enhancement.
Carr appealed and this court affirmed the conviction and true finding on the enhancement but remanded the case to the trial court to exercise its newly acquired discretion to dismiss the firearm enhancement in the furtherance of justice if appropriate. (People v. Carr (Mar. 28, 2019, D072834) [nonpub. opn.].)
On remand, the trial court held a hearing on Carr's request to strike or modify the term for the firearm enhancement. After completion of the hearing and review of the briefs, the court declined to strike or modify the term for the enhancement. The court reinstated the previous judgment.
Carr filed a timely notice of appeal.
Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) indicating she has not been able to identify any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks this court to review the record for error as mandated by Wende. We offered Carr the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The facts surrounding the events in the underlying conviction are exhaustively set forth in our prior opinion. (People v. Carr, supra, D072834.) We will not repeat them here.
DISCUSSION
As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a Wende brief and requests this court's review of 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 she considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal:
1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to strike the firearm enhancement; and
2. Was the court required to recalculate the time Carr had spent in custody.
We have reviewed the entire record as mandated by Anders and Wende. We have not identified any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Carr on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, Acting P. J. WE CONCUR: AARON, J. GUERRERO, J.