Opinion
B307369
07-21-2021
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ROBERT HARRIS, Defendant and Appellant.
Alex Coolman, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County No. A782026, Richard S. Kemalyan, Judge. Affirmed.
Alex Coolman, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
CURREY, J.
In 1987, defendant and appellant Robert L. Harris pled guilty to second degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a)), and the trial court sentenced him to an indeterminate term of 15 years to life in state prison. In 2019, Harris filed a petition for resentencing under section 1170.95. In 2020, the trial court denied the petition, concluding Harris had not made a prima facie showing of entitlement to relief. In support of its ruling, the court noted the record of conviction showed Harris was the actual killer. Harris timely appealed. In his notice of appeal, he specified he was appealing the denial of his section 1170.95 petition.
All undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
Harris's appointed counsel filed a brief raising no issues and invoking People v. Serrano (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 496 (Serrano). Under Serrano, when appointed counsel raises no issues in an appeal from a post-judgment proceeding following a first appeal as of right, an appellate court need not independently review the record. (Id. at p. 503.) We directed counsel to send the record and a copy of the brief to Harris, and notified Harris of his right to respond within 30 days. Harris filed a supplemental brief. In his supplemental brief, Harris does not contest the trial court's conclusion that he is ineligible for section 1170.95 relief. Instead, he notes that he was under 25 years old when his offense occurred, and suggests he is entitled to be resentenced under section 3051 and People v. Franklin (2016) 63 Cal.4th 261 (Franklin). The record reveals no order denying Franklin relief. The record also does not contain any notice of appeal stating Harris is appealing the denial of relief under Franklin. Accordingly, his supplemental brief relates to issues not before us on this appeal. We therefore conclude it would be inappropriate to review these contentions. We separately note the trial court was correct in denying his section 1170.95 motion because the record of conviction showed Harris was the actual killer. (See § 189, subd. (e)(1).)
DISPOSITION
The superior court's order is affirmed.
We concur: WILLHITE, Acting P.J., COLLINS, J.