Opinion
D077233
09-24-2020
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ROBERT LEE FRANKLIN, Defendant and Appellant.
Robert Lee Franklin, in pro. per.; and Alex Kreit, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. SCN404482) APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, David J. Danielsen (Retired Judge of the San Diego Sup. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.). Affirmed. Robert Lee Franklin, in pro. per.; and Alex Kreit, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
On September 16, 2019, Robert Lee Franklin pleaded guilty to one count of grand theft of property of a value greater than $950 (Pen. Code, § 487, subd. (a)). The parties stipulated to a four-year term in local prison. The remaining charges and allegations were dismissed. Franklin was sentenced in accordance with the plea agreement.
All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
Franklin did not appeal from the plea and sentence.
Thereafter, Franklin filed three pro per forms for resentencing under section 1170.18 (Proposition 47).
In January 2020, the court denied the petitions by written order. The court found Franklin, who had admitted the property taken was valued in excess of $950, was not eligible for relief under section 1170.18.
Franklin filed a notice of appeal from the denial of his petition for resentencing.
Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) indicating he has not identified any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks the court to review the record for error as mandated by Wende. We offered Franklin the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal. Franklin has responded with a lengthy document. We will discuss his submission below.
DISCUSSION
This appeal is from a postjudgment motion following a guilty plea and the facts of the underlying offense are not relevant to assessment of the record on appeal from the denial of Proposition 47 relief. We will omit a statement of facts. --------
As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a Wende brief and asks the court to review 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 one possible issue which was considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: Whether the court erred in finding Franklin was not eligible for resentencing under section 1170.18.
In his supplemental brief, Franklin relies on alleged facts and events that are not contained in the record on appeal. Although he did not appeal or challenge his guilty plea following the entry of judgment, Franklin now contends his signature on the change of plea was obtained by fraud. At base, he accuses the prosecutor of misconduct because the charge to which he pleaded guilty was a fraud. Franklin now contends his plea was a product of a scheme by his attorney to "get a black man to sign the plea form." Suffice to note, we have not discovered anything in the record on appeal that even remotely supports Franklin's current accusations. The supplemental brief does not raise any arguable issues for reversal on appeal.
We have reviewed the entire record as mandated by Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Franklin on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The order denying Franklin's petition for resentencing under section 1170.18 is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, J. WE CONCUR: McCONNELL, P. J. AARON, J.